|
|
Post by RocketMan on Nov 3, 2011 22:27:48 GMT -5
AM are great. they could have been even more successful if they had a big single
|
|
|
|
Post by Headmaster on Nov 3, 2011 23:02:06 GMT -5
Arctic Monkeys aren't successful in America much because of their accent, just like Pulp, their accent are too british, americans just don't get it.
|
|
|
|
Post by takemethere95 on Nov 4, 2011 5:30:29 GMT -5
AM are great. they could have been even more successful if they had a big single Sorry? When the Sun Goes Down and Dancefloor, their first two singles, both reached number one. They've had five other top 20s, but just don't care about the singles charts anymore. |
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Nov 8, 2011 12:59:22 GMT -5
Arctic Monkeys aren't successful in America much because of their accent, just like Pulp, their accent are too british, americans just don't get it. Normally I tend to agree with your posts, but not this one. WPSIATWIN was huge in the US. And to do this day they sell out their shows here. I think Americans just have a problem with attention span. Nothing ever sticks with them. |
|
sbajf
Madferrit Fan
Posts: 69
|
Post by sbajf on Nov 8, 2011 19:43:35 GMT -5
AM are great, they fucking smashed it at the NEC the other day. Americans probably don't understand the cultural references in the first album which is part of what makes it so great.
|
|
|
|
Post by Headmaster on Nov 8, 2011 20:56:54 GMT -5
Arctic Monkeys aren't successful in America much because of their accent, just like Pulp, their accent are too british, americans just don't get it. Normally I tend to agree with your posts, but not this one. WPSIATWIN was huge in the US. And to do this day they sell out their shows here. I think Americans just have a problem with attention span. Nothing ever sticks with them. WPSIATWIN wasn't "HUGE" in America, it probably made a moderate sucess over there wiith indie fans, but much was because of the hype, but HUGE it was not. AM til today didn't broke into mainstream in America like Coldplay for exemple, and I'm telling you, much of this is because of their accent, both Liam and Chris Martin doesn't have this cockney accent that the americans hate, however Alex Turner has. |
|
|
|
Post by thuperthonic on Nov 8, 2011 23:51:39 GMT -5
Yeah, it definitely wasn't "huge in the US." Nobody knows who the fuck the Arctic Monkeys are. Speaking of, who the fuck are the Arctic Monkeys?
|
|
sbajf
Madferrit Fan
Posts: 69
|
Post by sbajf on Nov 9, 2011 7:11:24 GMT -5
Normally I tend to agree with your posts, but not this one. WPSIATWIN was huge in the US. And to do this day they sell out their shows here. I think Americans just have a problem with attention span. Nothing ever sticks with them. Alex Turner doesn't have anything like a Cockney accent. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2011 14:31:21 GMT -5
Arctic Monkeys are pretty big, but they aren't that big here. I think you all are either overestimating or underestimating their success. Out of all of the British bands that spring up post-2004, they're the most well known (or at least tied with Franz Ferdinand).
|
|
|
|
Post by GIMH on Nov 24, 2011 15:30:57 GMT -5
This thread has been floating about the whole time I've been here but I left it until today to read it.
I was doing bar work in 05-06 when Dancefloor and when the sun goes down starting getting airplay and I don't think I've ever come across people going mental for a band as much as everyone in the boozer was, since Oasis. It's skewed because I worked in a pub where the lads had good music taste but I saw this repeated in indie clubs and just normal bars across the country. Where they fell short was that they didn't embed themselves in the mainstream as much but their album really spoke to people and I think they reminded people of Oasis because they did invoke the same emotions as Oasis's early songs about youth.
I got my missus pregnant in summer 06 so kinda lost touch with the music scene aside from Oasis and GNR for a few years, but I bought the 2nd, 3rd and 4th albums in June this year and I still have their debut on heavy rotation. For me, them and The Killers are the best bands since Oasis.
I don't think there is an Oasis in any generation other than the real one but they are the band that remind me most of Oasis.
|
|
|
|
Post by elchupacabra on Nov 28, 2011 18:38:57 GMT -5
I'm probably going to get ripped to pieces here but I now prefer Arctic Monkeys to Oasis. I can listen to all four of their albums back without wanting to skip any tracks. I can't say the same about the first four Oasis albums.
|
|
|
|
Post by thuperthonic on Nov 28, 2011 18:44:54 GMT -5
I'm probably going to get ripped to pieces here but I now prefer Arctic Monkeys to Oasis. I can listen to all four of their albums back without wanting to skip any tracks. I can't say the same about the first four Oasis albums. Are the Arctic Monkeys' highs as high as Oasis' were though? I don't have a horse in this race, I'm just curious if you think so... |
|
|
|
Post by songbirdsally on Nov 28, 2011 18:57:05 GMT -5
For me they aren't. As Thuperthonic says, Oasis highs are damn high, nearly impossible to ever be beaten. Only thing that comes close is Kasabian, cause they're so freaking good live!
Objectively seen though, I get the comparison. And after their amazing debut and 2nd album, they coul've become the 'new Oasis of this generation', but I kind of think they ruined that with Humbug. Not saying it's a bad album, but it's just not what the people were expecting/wanting at that time for them to become 'the new Oasis'.
I've seen them live as well, 2 days before Humbug dropped, and they played Humbug in full without anyone in the crowd having heard the album. Also, they were lifeless on stage. And Alex didn't look at the crowd at all, his hair was hanging over his eyes and if he said 10 words throughout the whole gig it would've been much. And that was their headlining gig at Belgians second biggest festival. Needless to say they threw a lot away back then! They'll never recover from it in Belgium, I'm pretty sure of that! I have never experienced such a strange atmosphere during and after a gig! Everyone had been looking forward to it so badly (it was majorly hyped!) and everyone really wanted to enjoy it, but it just was so strange...
|
|
|
|
Post by elchupacabra on Nov 29, 2011 18:33:38 GMT -5
That's part of the reason why I love them. They don't try to make albums that people expect of them instead they make the albums that they want to make. I don't think they will become as popular as Oasis but I personally prefer their music.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2011 19:37:40 GMT -5
The Humbug era is well known as a weird one. I bet they threw it away on purpose. Turner is the 19th richest Brit under 30, something like that, I doubt he has any monetary concerns!
|
|
|
|
Post by underneaththesky on Dec 2, 2011 7:55:12 GMT -5
they became shit after the first record, havent they?
|
|
|
|
Post by elchupacabra on Dec 3, 2011 10:06:56 GMT -5
they became shit after the first record, havent they? Or they evolved as a band and it wasn't to everyone's taste? |
|
|
|
Post by Headmaster on Dec 3, 2011 10:20:22 GMT -5
they became shit after the first record, havent they? Kind of, they already lost their mojo on their 3th album and on their fourth they were on automatic pilot. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2011 1:44:25 GMT -5
they became shit after the first record, havent they? Kind of, they already lost their mojo on their 3th album and on their fourth they were on automatic pilot. Have you even listened to Humbug and Suck It and See? Because that's about as inaccurate as it gets. |
|
|
|
Post by GIMH on Dec 4, 2011 7:23:51 GMT -5
What I don't get is why people who rate the 1st album hate on the 2nd. It's fooking great. I love Humbug and Suck it and See but could understand why that would drive people away. Favourite Worst Nightmare though? it's in a similar veing to WPSIATWIN but with clear signs of progression.
|
|
|
|
Post by Headmaster on Dec 4, 2011 16:54:22 GMT -5
Kind of, they already lost their mojo on their 3th album and on their fourth they were on automatic pilot. Have you even listened to Humbug and Suck It and See? Because that's about as inaccurate as it gets. Yeah I heard both, and what i have said is fact. |
|
|
|
Post by elchupacabra on Dec 5, 2011 17:49:00 GMT -5
Have you even listened to Humbug and Suck It and See? Because that's about as inaccurate as it gets. Yeah I heard both, and what i have said is fact. Not fact. Opinion. Like my opinion that all they're albums have been great. I understand if you don't like your bands to experiment or try something new though. Just your personal preference. |
|
dion
Oasis Roadie
Posts: 362
|
Post by dion on Dec 8, 2011 11:40:37 GMT -5
They never had a Morning Glory or anything that "the mothers could get on", the first is in the same league as DM but nothing they've done has the same all encompassing appeal of whats the story.
As for they post WEPSIATWIN, it's what I imagine most people feel about Oasis post BHN. Good singles but the album tracks don't do enough to draw you in if you aren't already a "fan-boi".
|
|
|
|
Post by craigthomas on Dec 8, 2011 12:40:32 GMT -5
Arctic Monkeys aren't successful in America much because of their accent, just like Pulp, their accent are too british, americans just don't get it. Normally I tend to agree with your posts, but not this one. WPSIATWIN was huge in the US. And to do this day they sell out their shows here. I think Americans just have a problem with attention span. Nothing ever sticks with them. I think you're using the word "huge" a bit liberally. The album went gold (if that), but not platinum. IBYLGOAD was the only thing remotely close to a hit and that was just on modern rock radio. The Arctic Monkeys were huge in America like Elastica was huge in America. |
|
JMF
RKid
Are you made of stone?
Posts: 5
|
Post by JMF on Dec 20, 2011 20:48:20 GMT -5
For what it's worth, wikipedia has WPSIAMTWIN selling "USA – 305,000".
|
|
Nov 4, 2024 5:04:30 GMT -5
Nov 4, 2024 5:04:30 GMT -5