|
|
Post by webm@ster on Feb 29, 2008 12:28:02 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Guy Fawkes on Feb 29, 2008 12:37:56 GMT -5
No. They've yet to give me goosebumps.
|
|
Smige
Oasis Roadie
Posts: 343
|
Post by Smige on Feb 29, 2008 12:53:50 GMT -5
The Libertines were closer to that than the Arctics.
|
|
|
|
Post by caro on Feb 29, 2008 13:45:26 GMT -5
hum.... I don't want to say no cos it would make me sound like those stupid people who say that Oasis are not the Beatles of our generation  and yeah they have good tunes, catchy songs.. but something's missing IMO for a start, their songs aren't diverse, all the same type of bouncy songs oh and I don't feel that they're fascinating as persons liam and noel are captivating as individual, not only as musicians So AM are good yeah, iconic I don't think so |
|
|
|
Post by mimmihopps on Feb 29, 2008 13:52:55 GMT -5
No. Although I like Arctic Monkeys and I think they're a good live band. (saw them twice)
Alex Turner has talent, but he doesn't own the attitude Liam got.
|
|
|
|
Post by kenneth on Feb 29, 2008 15:57:40 GMT -5
No way, man! They're boring, and they lack the attitude! And they're way to nice. Don't like them at all. I like Kasabian much better. The definitely got better songs to.
|
|
|
|
Post by wankinginthebushes on Feb 29, 2008 16:13:20 GMT -5
You lot are taking this far too literally.
Of course Alex doesnt have the attitude of Liam! He's nothing like him at all.
We'll never see a band as big as Oasis. But Arctic Monkeys are as close as you'll get. Yes, IMO they are the Oasis of today's genertation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Guy Fawkes on Feb 29, 2008 16:45:04 GMT -5
Wanking's a AM groupie.
|
|
|
|
Post by No Way Sis on Feb 29, 2008 16:57:01 GMT -5
'Course they are! they broke the same record Oasis had (fastest debut album) and went on 2 play MASSIVE gigs by their 2nd album (same as Oasis). AM are more indie, Oasis are more like a rock n roll band tho.
And dont compare Al Turner and Liam Gallagher. Liam is/was a great singer, but Al pisses all over him as a person and a songwriter...but he's no Noel.
|
|
|
|
Post by lionsden® on Feb 29, 2008 19:06:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Cast on Feb 29, 2008 20:17:34 GMT -5
No they are not.. They are talented... Alex is a great songwriter. But they lack the roll n rock attitude, thats not a bad thing though, they seem like cool kids. Both albums are great album but they have not knocked me out of my seat also they have not aged that well I only listen to each album about once every month.. Their third album will the one that we will really judge them by
|
|
|
|
Post by unnaturalemotion on Mar 1, 2008 0:52:25 GMT -5
i hate Arctic Monkeys, i don't think of them as "the new oasis" at all, to me they're just some lousy imitators of "the clash" i like kaiser chiefs better.
|
|
|
|
Post by adamhannah on Mar 2, 2008 4:38:27 GMT -5
Being of 'this generation' although having missed out on Oasis at the peak of their popularity by quite a bit, I would say that Arctic Monkeys are not really the Oasis of our generation, in that there isnt the all out almost hysteria of the Be Here Now years. But I would say, having seen them live, that they are THE band of this generation. Fuck the Libertines for all I care. And for the person who said they are less diverse than Oasis, they have done two albums which are about the same variation as DM and WTSMG, give them some time please. And I will say if they can nail their third, greatness awaits.
|
|
|
|
Post by adamhannah on Mar 2, 2008 4:39:28 GMT -5
And 'lousy imitators of the clash'? Are you high? Or just stupid?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2008 5:50:38 GMT -5
No, they don't hold a candle to Oasis.
I remember when I heard my first Oasis album, nothing has yet to come close to that feeling. The Arctic Monkeys have nothing defining, nothing life affirming. Call me when they got a tune like Live Forever, then we'll talk.
Not to mention their first album is piss poor and sounds like any two bit indie band. Thank goodness Favourite Worst Nightmare is such a huge improvement.
|
|
|
|
Post by unnaturalemotion on Mar 2, 2008 9:16:07 GMT -5
And 'lousy imitators of the clash'? Are you high? Or just stupid? there's no need for personal attacks ok? that's just MY opinion about them, it doesn't mean it's true, it's just an opinion. |
|
Rasto
Oasis Roadie
Posts: 400
|
Post by Rasto on Mar 2, 2008 10:45:14 GMT -5
I don't think they are new Oasis. To be honest, I'm not excited of them.  |
|
|
|
Post by StepOut on Mar 2, 2008 15:12:14 GMT -5
I saw them open for Oasis. They're not the new Oasis, but their live presence and sound is similar to Oasis. It was like a massive rhythm guitar, a wall of sound, pretty cool.
|
|
|
|
Post by Shakermaker on Mar 2, 2008 16:31:02 GMT -5
IMO they are not. Oasis wrote way better songs on their first album, and came up with a more universal second one. Morining Glory sounded more big, you really could "hear" the glorious days of a generation on that album. AM just made two albums genarally sounding the same. Remember Oasis on Knebworth? ... AM probably never will get that far. On the other hand, The Arctic Monkeys have great songs and great lyrics, the lyrics are very straight to the point, very direct and clear. They are really singing about the lives of the young people of today. That's something Oasis did as well back then ... in that way they have some kind of impact to a generation like Oasis had on their generation. It's good that bands now and then can do this ... like The Libertines did as well. I think The Libertines and The Arctic Monkeys have a impact on their generation, but it's not as big as Oasis did back then, and they are not as big as Oasis are. ... Well that's my opinion...  |
|
|
|
Post by jilliam on Mar 3, 2008 2:06:10 GMT -5
No theyre NOT! And I'll tell you why... because the milkman, the paperboy arent dying to buy their tunes. Yes, they have excellent record sales but, theyve not captivated EVERYONE the way oasis did at their peak. IMO they're Blur and I'm being too kind now.
|
|
|
|
Post by wankinginthebushes on Mar 3, 2008 6:01:43 GMT -5
Again, it seems most of you are missing the point.
They're not the NEW Oasis!
Stop taking it too literally! Just becuase Alex Turner and Cookie havent had a massive drunken fight yet and quit the band, doesnt mean they arent the Oasis of today.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2008 11:56:20 GMT -5
until they play a union jack guitar the comparison is a joke
|
|
|
|
Post by dearprudence on Mar 4, 2008 7:57:36 GMT -5
I like them i just don't think they are the new anything..
|
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Mar 11, 2008 1:40:47 GMT -5
absolutely not. they're songs are hollow, and their tunes all sound the exact same. The Enemy as more potential to be the next "Oasis" Arctic Monkeys fucking suck
|
|
|
|
Post by oliverlewis on Mar 11, 2008 3:04:40 GMT -5
No they are not, they are OK but I find them a bit boring. I remember as the MG album was taking off it seemed oasis were everywhere and every one, every newspaper (including the likes of The Times) every TV and radio show was talking about them. It was a phenomina which probably will not to be repeated in years to come. Not wishing to overstate it but I think it was probably like the Beatles at their peak. Every record shop and most supernarkets and otehr shops selling CD's had merchandisers selling oasis's two albums (so far) their singles, DVD's and even the Benson and Hedges Boxsets. Oasis were out selling everyone else by about 10 to 1. I remember going to Italy on Holiday and I went into a shopping mall and DLBIA was playing and then I saw them on the TV news the same night. As I went from teh UK across Europe it semed taht just about every other person had an oasis T shirt. Tell me if I'm wrong but the AM just haven't been everywhere like oasis at their peak (95-67 maybe).
|
|
Nov 4, 2024 5:04:30 GMT -5
Nov 4, 2024 5:04:30 GMT -5