|
Post by start at the end on Mar 11, 2008 10:52:22 GMT -5
I think some here are missing the point a bit. It's not about WHO'S better or even if their music is comparable for that matter (outside of them both being rock n roll bands of course).
It's more if they're represenative of their generation, the sound, and the times. And while I would never compare the AM's scope or depth of popularity with Oasis during their heyday (not even comparable world wide), I would argue that they do rule "their" roost at the moment, especially from a UK only perspective. They sell out every venue they play, they enjoy simultaneous critical AND commercial acclaim, and they have a penchant for disorderly conduct. Honestly, I'm not sure if we'll see an OASIS-like take-over again any time soon, but that doesn't mean that the AM's (or any future act) can't be the "that time's" closest respresentation of it (the oasis nineties).
Record sales have been rendered virtually meaningless thanks to the i-net, but even so, they have managed to post staggering numbers. I doubt they'll ever embrace the global affections (or infections) that oasis did, but they're the closest thing going at the moment.
|
|
ozfan2
Oasis Roadie
Posts: 307
|
Post by ozfan2 on Mar 16, 2008 7:59:04 GMT -5
No they are so boring. I do have both their albums but never play them. I watched the Brit Award recording (shown on Channell V in Australia tonight) and what an embarrassing show. The Artic Monkeys won two awards and should have stuck with snubbing the award ceremony and being all aloof and enigmatic as they made idiots of themselves and showed themselves up as the prats they really are. At least Noel has realised he's got to stop Liam from giving interviews as he comes across as an idiot, whereas Noel is articulate and funny.
The AM didn't have anything to say and were pissed but it just wasn't funny, they looked moronic and it was cringe worthy
Most of the presenters were pissed too, it was so shambolic and was a poor advertisment for the UK music industry in general. I watched it with a few aussie friends and I(as someone from the UK originally) was trying to defend it as they were having a field day, ripping into. In the end I gave up and agreed with them.
Sorry what an awful show if all the artists and presenters of awards are too pissed to take it seriously why should anyone watch it. Kylie was the only one not drunk and showing any kind of professionalism.
Paul McCartney at the end-Yuck, he should have given up years ago, his new single he played was atrocious. Sorry what a pathetic excuse for a show.
Oh yes the Monkeys are crap too, not a patch on oasis. I remember they gave a better account of themselves at Brit Awards.
|
|
|
Post by nyr401994 on Mar 17, 2008 0:36:14 GMT -5
no.
|
|
sonlc
Madferrit Fan
Posts: 66
|
Post by sonlc on Apr 19, 2008 10:10:28 GMT -5
I don't like them at all. Nobody I know really likes them either. Nobody I know gets excited when they tour, or gives a shit when they release a new song, so eh, its a no from me.
|
|
|
Post by Capering Klown on May 6, 2008 23:52:48 GMT -5
A lot of people have made some good points so far, and I hope I'm not just reiterating too much of it, but I agree with the idea that we're not talking about how similar AM are to Oasis, but rather whether the bands fill a similar niche in British music.
I think its important to realize that in the current musical 'environment', it would be impossible for any band to be a modern Oasis in the sense that some people have described above. Oasis made music that were the voice of their nation and generation. I'd argue that AM are equally the voice of the current generation as Oasis were for those growing up in the '90s. I also think that if a band came along today that were exactly like Oasis, they wouldn't have anywhere near the success and might even be a joke. Oasis came at just the right time; music "needed" a band like them. It just seems unlikely that any band could reach that status now, but I think AM are doing about the best the could be. I think the same young people who would be listening to Oasis in the '90s would be listening to the Arctics in the '00s, although the potential 'market' for AM fans might be smaller than it was for Oasis.
I suppose Coldplay are one of the bands that casual music fans get excited for, but they're soft. AM are one of the few rocking bands that know what they're doing and there's nothing contrived about it. What AM lack (and I'm not complaining) is a media figure that gets the headlines like Liam did in his heyday. The only other character that I think matches Liam in his '90s popularity is Pete Doherty, and although I'm a fan of some of his work (esp. Libertines and maybe a tiny bit of Babyshambles), his current output does not match AM or Oasis.
Overall, I'd say yes, that the Arctics are the Oasis of this generation. My question, to those who would say otherwise, is who would be the Oasis of this generation if AM are not? Coldplay are a little too soft; I see them as more of a U2 protegé type band. Many other bands are just too small. The Enemy? Please. My impression is that AM are in the spotlight at the moment and are the finest rock/indie band of this generation. Their debut is raw and FWN was a clear progression. I think overall they have a fantastic catologue, with fewer patchy bits than Oasis had.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on May 7, 2008 3:23:39 GMT -5
A lot of people have made some good points so far, and I hope I'm not just reiterating too much of it, but I agree with the idea that we're not talking about how similar AM are to Oasis, but rather whether the bands fill a similar niche in British music. I think its important to realize that in the current musical 'environment', it would be impossible for any band to be a modern Oasis in the sense that some people have described above. Oasis made music that were the voice of their nation. I also think that if a band came along today that were exactly like Oasis, they wouldn't have anywhere near the success and might even be a joke. Oasis came at just the right time; music "needed" a band like them. It just seems unlikely that any band could reach that status now, but I think AM are doing about the best the could be. I think the same young people who would be listening to Oasis in the '90s would be listening to the Arctics in the '00s, although the potential 'market' for AM fans might be smaller than it was for Oasis. I suppose Coldplay are one of the bands that casual music fans get excited for, but they're soft. AM are one of the few rocking bands that know what they're doing and there's nothing contrived about it. What AM lack (and I'm not complaining) is a media figure that gets the headlines like Liam did in his heyday. The only other character that I think matches Liam in his '90s popularity is Pete Doherty, and although I'm a fan of some of his work (esp. Libertines and maybe a tiny bit of Babyshambles), his current output does not match AM or Oasis. Overall, I'd say yes, that the Arctics are the Oasis of this generation. My question, to those who would say otherwise, is who would be the Oasis of this generation if AM are not? Coldplay are a little too soft; I see them as more of a U2 protegé type band. Many other bands are just too small. The Enemy? Please. My impression is that AM are in the spotlight at the moment and are the finest rock/indie band of this generation. Their debut is raw and FWN was a clear progression. I think overall they have a fantastic catologue, with fewer patchy bits than Oasis had. I'm sorry, but Arctic Monkeys are no where near the highs of Oasis. None of their songs have cracked America like Wonderwall did. Arctic Monkeys dont mean anything socially like Oasis did. Arctic Monkeys arent selling out worldwide tours like Oasis did, or playing to a quarter of a million fans in 2 nights like Oasis. Arctic Monkeys arent as diverse with songs as Oasis are -- all AMs songs sound the same. The simple fact is that theres no "new Oasis" or "Oasis of this generation" yet.
|
|
|
Post by adamhannah on May 7, 2008 4:39:18 GMT -5
A lot of people have made some good points so far, and I hope I'm not just reiterating too much of it, but I agree with the idea that we're not talking about how similar AM are to Oasis, but rather whether the bands fill a similar niche in British music. I think its important to realize that in the current musical 'environment', it would be impossible for any band to be a modern Oasis in the sense that some people have described above. Oasis made music that were the voice of their nation. I also think that if a band came along today that were exactly like Oasis, they wouldn't have anywhere near the success and might even be a joke. Oasis came at just the right time; music "needed" a band like them. It just seems unlikely that any band could reach that status now, but I think AM are doing about the best the could be. I think the same young people who would be listening to Oasis in the '90s would be listening to the Arctics in the '00s, although the potential 'market' for AM fans might be smaller than it was for Oasis. I suppose Coldplay are one of the bands that casual music fans get excited for, but they're soft. AM are one of the few rocking bands that know what they're doing and there's nothing contrived about it. What AM lack (and I'm not complaining) is a media figure that gets the headlines like Liam did in his heyday. The only other character that I think matches Liam in his '90s popularity is Pete Doherty, and although I'm a fan of some of his work (esp. Libertines and maybe a tiny bit of Babyshambles), his current output does not match AM or Oasis. Overall, I'd say yes, that the Arctics are the Oasis of this generation. My question, to those who would say otherwise, is who would be the Oasis of this generation if AM are not? Coldplay are a little too soft; I see them as more of a U2 protegé type band. Many other bands are just too small. The Enemy? Please. My impression is that AM are in the spotlight at the moment and are the finest rock/indie band of this generation. Their debut is raw and FWN was a clear progression. I think overall they have a fantastic catologue, with fewer patchy bits than Oasis had. I agree 100%, very well put.
|
|
|
Post by checkwithmemum on May 7, 2008 8:47:07 GMT -5
I'm sorry, but Arctic Monkeys are no where near the highs of Oasis. None of their songs have cracked America like Wonderwall did. Arctic Monkeys dont mean anything socially like Oasis did. Arctic Monkeys arent selling out worldwide tours like Oasis did, or playing to a quarter of a million fans in 2 nights like Oasis. Arctic Monkeys arent as diverse with songs as Oasis are -- all AMs songs sound the same. The simple fact is that theres no "new Oasis" or "Oasis of this generation" yet. Arctic Monkeys are nowhere near the heights of Oasis were because music and specifically Rock 'n' Roll music isn't anywhere near as important anymore in popular culture. I didn't read the rest of your post cause you normally just post utter shite, its why your count is high.
|
|
|
Post by thebeerbaron1 on May 7, 2008 15:06:37 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Capering Klown on May 7, 2008 18:02:14 GMT -5
Arctic Monkeys arent selling out worldwide tours like Oasis did, or playing to a quarter of a million fans in 2 nights like Oasis. Arctic Monkeys arent as diverse with songs as Oasis are -- all AMs songs sound the same. The simple fact is that theres no "new Oasis" or "Oasis of this generation" yet. All AM songs sound the same? Talk about subjective. It's incredibly easy to make that exact same claim about Oasis' music, believe you me -- I've heard more than enough people say that about Oasis. Examples: Wonderwall, DYKWIM, TGWTDS all have the same chord progression; SMS & TYFTGT (as Noel has said himself); a lot of their more rocky tracks also sound monotonous to people whom aren't Oasis fans. Hell, now listen to FON and Liam's new track. The list could go on. In any event, I'd argue that Arctic Monkeys are no more, or rather, less monotonous than Oasis; the reason being that in most AM songs they have the same 4 instruments (some exceptions on FWN), as do Oasis on many of their albums. Anyway, this is getting off topic. The point is that AM's music sounding 'samey' is not a valid reason for why they can't be considered the Oasis of this generation; if it were true, it would make them moreso the Oasis of this generation than not ;D Clearly its not worth my time arguing cos I can see your viewpoint and you seem stubborn so we'll agree to disagree. I think what we're disagreeing on here is more based on our interpretation of the question.
|
|
|
Post by queenoasis on May 9, 2008 17:52:55 GMT -5
Hahahahahahaaa!
|
|
|
Post by malarky on Jun 30, 2008 18:25:39 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... Two albums sound the same?? Go listen to them again.. they don't sound the same at all!!
|
|
|
Post by psj3809 on Jul 2, 2008 3:22:36 GMT -5
After their debut album the media were creaming themselves over the Artic Monkeys. I dont mind the second album at all (some great songs on it) but it seems it was a bit of a comedown after their debut.
Fair bit of pressure on them for this third album as they have to get back to the heights of their debut.
|
|
|
Post by thebeerbaron1 on Jul 9, 2008 17:14:51 GMT -5
they are a clever little band but i dont play the first album two years on. am still playing oasis dm on a regular basis over a decade later.
i think the libertines were the band that was going to define this decade and dick head doherty fucked that up!
oasis were massive back then, everyone loved them,metal heads cut their hair and bought their records,grannies bought wonderwall, the whole country went to massive stadiums to see them. the monkeys never had the songs or the "fuck you" attitude that oasis had.
name me one monkeys song that comes remotely close to the rock n roll perfection of supersonic?
|
|
|
Post by domduv87 on Jul 10, 2008 8:36:15 GMT -5
Nope. I'd say Kasabian are, they're not as well known (or are they?), i dunno i'd just say less people know Kasabian, or their songs than the Monkees. But Kasabian are so much better, Empire, what an amazing song.
|
|
|
Post by KPZK the Most Supreme...Thingy on Jul 10, 2008 15:05:02 GMT -5
I don't really know. Musically, they are sometimes sort of Oasis-ish, but image-wise they aren't particularly (then again, no one these days is! .
|
|
|
Post by caats19 on Jul 13, 2008 2:07:58 GMT -5
imo the libertines are a fad that i grew out of. i can't listen to em now. i think the Arctic Monkeys would be remembered more like the Smiths. their attitudes are more like that. they're not the next oasis because they don't have the proper attitudes to be rock n roll stars.
|
|
|
Post by darkside on Jul 13, 2008 12:45:20 GMT -5
of course not!
they are RUBBISH
i dont know how anybody will ever think that, i mean really, it just piss me off to hear those rumors
|
|
|
Post by ugottahavefun on Jul 13, 2008 12:58:20 GMT -5
THe arctic monkeys are indeed the Oasis of our generation (albeit to a lesser degree). The enemy are posers. Enough said
LIsten to
The Bakery Despair in the Departure LOunge Bigger Boys and Stolen Sweethearts
|
|
|
Post by MacaRonic on Jul 19, 2008 11:40:04 GMT -5
Although not worthy of being fastest selling debut- AM's first album was a classic and could possibly be compared to Def Maybe, but their second album was a disaster. They need to redeem themselves!
|
|
|
Post by checkwithmemum on Jul 19, 2008 13:12:39 GMT -5
they are the first Arctic Monkeys and Oasis are the last Oasis.
|
|
|
Post by puretone on Jul 26, 2008 15:46:33 GMT -5
I think they are in the sense that there one of the first bands to probably represent youth culture since Oasis. Every teenager loved oasis when they first came out because of tunes like Cigarettes and Alcohol, Live Forever etc. cause that shit means something to you when your young and its the same with the Arctic Monkeys.
They don't have to have the same sound as oasis or have the same attitude as them to be the oasis of this generation. They just gotta have the same type of impact which I think they have.
Also these dudes are just being themselves. They ain't another bunch of Gallagher wannabes copying there attitude and shit.
|
|
|
Post by thelostchord on Jul 26, 2008 19:16:59 GMT -5
Arctic Monkeys are more similar to Blur or Pulp in my opinion, they are a good band and will make good music, but there is no possible way they will have an impact on the music industry and culture like Oasis did. Even though The Enemy aren't that good, they have the potential to be similar to what Oasis was. They just gotta have better album tracks. Their singles are fucking ace.
|
|
|
Post by rmillis on Jul 26, 2008 23:56:32 GMT -5
Arctic Monkeys first album is a 5 star album. When you sell as many records like that as an "indy" band you know you're good. The Arctic Monkeys are one of my favorite bands. Around where I live in Michigan, kids my age actually know the AM but don't know Oasis. I'm 19 and I feel like it's geared more towards my generation. To be 19 and listening to 40 years olds (Noel G) is quite rare I would think as an American. I don't know what you guys have against the AM but every song they have ever released has been amazing to me. The new AM album being worked on is said to be a little more experimental. But we'll see if it rivals a "Be Here Now". I think it will.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Jul 30, 2008 15:03:09 GMT -5
Arctic Monkeys first album is a 5 star album. When you sell as many records like that as an "indy" band you know you're good. The Arctic Monkeys are one of my favorite bands. Around where I live in Michigan, kids my age actually know the AM but don't know Oasis. I'm 19 and I feel like it's geared more towards my generation. To be 19 and listening to 40 years olds (Noel G) is quite rare I would think as an American. I don't know what you guys have against the AM but every song they have ever released has been amazing to me. The new AM album being worked on is said to be a little more experimental. But we'll see if it rivals a "Be Here Now". I think it will. American's know about the AM's due to the media, if Oasis was promoted properly here (and didn't walk off their tours in the mid 90s) they would be monumental here too. My main problem with what you wrote is that you're being an ageist. It doesn't hold up. Bono from U2 is 48!!! Jay Z is 38 himself, only 3 years younger than Noel and 2 years OLDER than Liam, and how about Bruce Springsteen? He's at the grand old age of 58! . Now, I personally don't like any of the 3 artists I've just named, but the fact is that all 3 are massive here in the US, so that shoots down your age theory, seeing that the members of Oasis are comparatively young Furthermore, as I said before, AM's are a good band, but nothing special. The lyrics are fantastic, but the sound is too hollow for my liking and every song sounds the same, they really really do. AM's aren't the Oasis of this generation because a.) Oasis are still bigger worldwide than the AM's currently are and b.) Oasis was a cultural movement - changed the way people talked and dressed, it brought back the concept of large rock gigs in stadiums, made indie music popular again, etc etc. I agree with the person above, The Enemy has more potential to mean something culturally like Oasis. Personally though, I don't think either band - or any current band for that matter, is the next Oasis....simply due to the fact that times are different. Movements come and movements go. 60s had the hippie, psychedelic movement, 80s had disco, late 80s/early 90s was all about raves and trance, mid 90s were devoted to brit pop and Oasis.... In the first decade of the 21st century, the only movement i can see is rap, sadly....thankfully thats mainly concentrated to the US as the UK has moved on years ago, but still..... For the most part, i think we're in a void as far as musical movements go. But sure enough, someone will come along and grab the western world by storm again, but the time has to be right.
|
|