|
|
Post by bwilder on May 9, 2010 16:45:20 GMT -5
Agreed.  |
|
|
|
Post by putthisin ® on May 9, 2010 19:24:01 GMT -5
If Oasis were the Beatles of our generation, then the question should be: are Arctic Monkeys the Beatles of our generation?
Oasis were. Arctic Monkeys aren't/won't.
|
|
|
|
Post by mimmihopps on May 10, 2010 3:19:46 GMT -5
If Oasis were the Beatles of our generation, then the question should be: are Arctic Monkeys the Beatles of our generation? Oasis were. Arctic Monkeys aren't/won't. Oasis has never been The Beatles of my generation. I got into Oasis by an accident, I wasn't search for The "new" Beatles. It just happened. |
|
|
|
Post by Iliad ♣ on May 13, 2010 3:19:55 GMT -5
I was talking to an ex-professor of Oxford University (so I take his word for everything he says  ) the other day. For me, it's hard to fully understand the extent of Oasis' popularity back in the nineties, but he said that in the last ten years, no band (not Coldplay, not Muse) has even come close to match Oasis in terms of size. However, the rise in popularity was too short to categorise Oasis as a fully grown stadium rock act like U2. So in terms of size, if bands like Coldplay and Muse are not able to match the "90's Oasis", then the Arctic Monkeys are not even worth mentioning. Musically, they are even more different. |
|
|
|
Post by yeayeayeah on Jun 7, 2010 18:43:49 GMT -5
the AM are not as big as oasis but that doesn't mean they cant be this generations oasis. I think they are, no other band really came close to the spirit of oasis. Coldplay can never be the 'peoples" band, no matter how good they are and the Libs burnt out too quick.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bring It On Dan on Jun 11, 2010 10:48:52 GMT -5
Twisted Wheel are more like Oasis than The Arctic's.
|
|
|
|
Post by His Royal Noelness on Jun 11, 2010 17:46:40 GMT -5
Agreed. |
|
|
|
Post by Cast on Jun 17, 2010 3:16:50 GMT -5
on top of this thats been posted I didn't find Arctic Moneys to be too impressive live. They were good but they didn't blow me out of the water like a true great band should. They are a good band but they are just missing something and I really don't know what it is.
|
|
|
|
Post by spaneli on Jun 17, 2011 21:03:12 GMT -5
Arctic Monkeys are a decent band, but they really lack the songs to be considered in the same league as Oasis. I like some of their songs, but I have never found myself listening to a whole albums and saying "fuck! that was a great album!".
They're just missing the songs.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2011 23:02:55 GMT -5
Oasis, like The Beatles, were part of the political change that was occurring during their hey-days. Their albums spoke to the rising generation in a way that The Arctic Monkey's don't.
Oasis and The Beatles touched audiences in a very different way than any bands today. Their music was a very important part of the cultural changes that were taking place. For that reason, they mean more to more people then bands today.
|
|
|
|
Post by Headmaster on Jun 18, 2011 13:19:25 GMT -5
Arctic Monkeys are a decent band, but they really lack the songs to be considered in the same league as Oasis. I like some of their songs, but I have never found myself listening to a whole albums and saying "fuck! that was a great album!". They're just missing the songs. This, even the best AM album isn't that great, but they really lack memorable songs to catch the people minds, even Oasis worst album has memorable songs. IMO AM is not even close to be the Oasis of this generation. |
|
|
|
Post by MasterplanMatt on Jun 18, 2011 15:18:38 GMT -5
Oasis, like The Beatles, were part of the political change that was occurring during their hey-days. Their albums spoke to the rising generation in a way that The Arctic Monkey's don't. Oasis and The Beatles touched audiences in a very different way than any bands today. Their music was a very important part of the cultural changes that were taking place. For that reason, they mean more to more people then bands today. Yes! It's just totally different! Now, everyone just wants bollocks like Justin Bieber and JLS. |
|
|
|
Post by matt on Jun 18, 2011 17:21:51 GMT -5
Looking at the posts previously from a few years ago, I said they 'sucked' - what an ignorant sweeping statement that was from me. Humbug actually got my attention - I admired them going forward looking at new ideas. Before then, I thought they were an overrated one trick pony, and the songs didn't have a hook or melody that would catch me.
But by giving them a proper chance I think Alex Turner is a really good lyricist - of the big big bands today that's quite a rare thing. And there's no doubt that their songs pack a punch. Their songs still lack those big hooks and melodies (that said their new album is the most catchy to me) which Oasis delivered with ease and I think their debut is overrated (saying it's not an ultimate classic). Still, they're a very good band and every album they release is turning into something different - if it was just the same as the first two I wouldn't have hardly any interest in them.
|
|
|
|
Post by bluesoul on Jun 19, 2011 8:43:44 GMT -5
that band is fucking shit
|
|
|
|
Post by Praetor on Jun 29, 2011 14:48:11 GMT -5
In my opinion the thing is this:
The market sucks for rock right now. The 90s was arguably the greatest decade for rock in history, and Oasis was at the top of that heap. Look at the competition they beat.
Now, look at Arctic Monkey's competition. Arcade Fire?
AM, AF, and other rock groups of this decade would have been at best mediocre bands in the 90s. AM vs STP? Yeah, right. AM vs Oasis? LOL.
Of course you're going to go buy the AM album. What else is there?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2011 3:47:02 GMT -5
In my opinion the thing is this: The market sucks for rock right now. The 90s was arguably the greatest decade for rock in history, and Oasis was at the top of that heap. Look at the competition they beat. Now, look at Arctic Monkey's competition. Arcade Fire? AM, AF, and other rock groups of this decade would have been at best mediocre bands in the 90s. AM vs STP? Yeah, right. AM vs Oasis? LOL. Of course you're going to go buy the AM album. What else is there? Arcade Fire make half of the biggest bands of the 90s look like jokes. They're the real deal, in every sense of the word. |
|
|
|
Post by Cast on Jun 30, 2011 23:24:53 GMT -5
In my opinion the thing is this: The market sucks for rock right now. The 90s was arguably the greatest decade for rock in history, and Oasis was at the top of that heap. Look at the competition they beat. Now, look at Arctic Monkey's competition. Arcade Fire? AM, AF, and other rock groups of this decade would have been at best mediocre bands in the 90s. AM vs STP? Yeah, right. AM vs Oasis? LOL. Of course you're going to go buy the AM album. What else is there? Arcade Fire make half of the biggest bands of the 90s look like jokes. They're the real deal, in every sense of the word. Arcade Fire is the 100% the real deal. Funeral isn't as good as DM (what is?) but its up there in terms of classic debut albums. The Suburbs was a top 3 album last year for me and I saw them live at Bonnaroo and they blew me away pure chaos and passion. I do agree with your assessment about the 90's though. It's arguably my favorite decade of music. Oasis, Pavement, early Wilco, The Verve, Ride, The La's, Blur, Supergrass, Whiskeytown, Weezer, The Flaming Lips, Radiohead, early Cat Power, Ben Folds Five and I could go on. But the 00's haven't been slouchy either. Mainstream radio music isn't as good but there is/were some amazing music being made by bands like Spoon, Broken Social Scene, Beach House, Smith Westerns, The Strokes, The Libertines, The Thrills, The Walkmen, Doves, Coldplay, The National, Band of Horses, Fleet Foxes, Ryan Adams and I could go on with that as well. I don't know if there is really a band that sums up/is the voice of this generation but that might not be a bad thing and it could be a little too early to tell. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2011 0:43:53 GMT -5
But, to be fair, bands like The Flaming Lips and Wilco didn't really come into their own commercial and critical peak until the past decade. I think it's unfair to compare decades, both have amazing and shit bands. Obviously opinions will differ, not to mention the 90s have twenties years worth of nostalgia on their side.
Anyway, I was at Bonnaroo too, small world! They were really fantastic there, not as good as when I saw them last year though. I definitely think they're in need for a break from touring (or at least a setlist overhaul), but they were still leagues better than nearly every other band I saw that weekend.
|
|
|
|
Post by Headmaster on Jul 1, 2011 12:50:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Nyron Nosworthy on Jul 1, 2011 13:16:50 GMT -5
The problem with the Arctic Monkeys is that they peaked too soon. Their "Be Here Now moment" was actually the release of their first album, and like Oasis it was downhill from there.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2011 20:11:34 GMT -5
Haha, not at all. From 1997 Oasis were assessed on a track by track basis and slaughtered for anything that wasn't 10/10. The Beatles wouldn't have stood up to that.
Arctic Monkeys get a free ride, as anyone who could potentially eclipse Oasis have done. The media always hated Oasis but jumped on the bandwagon when there was money to be made. They'd love the public to adopt Don't Sit Down 'Cos I've Moved Your Chair like they did Champagne Supernova but they won't because it's just not comparable.
|
|
|
|
Post by Shockmaster on Jul 9, 2011 10:00:45 GMT -5
No. It can't happen... Not with the state of music at the moment... oasis were a world dominating band... It was one of those rare phenomenons that you only get maybe once every 20 years... Everyone liked Oasis... and if they didn't, they were in the minority that liked blur... But now, we have shit dominating the world... Rhianna, Bieber, etc... And they aren't something that everyone can enjoy, that will catch on. You'll never get someone that would die for "RnB"... the people that like "RnB" are all robots that follw the crowd... However, you will get people that would die for Rock n Roll... Or die for metal... these fans are crucial to a band being world beaters... You need the robots... But then you need the die-hards on top do dominate the world... Something that no musical act in the world today has... Nobody has both... But if Arctic Monkeys, Kasabian, Muse, heck, even Biffy Clyro, could sway their music to be followed by the robots, that band would be "the new Oasis" (Of course, in terms of popularity, not sound) because the Rock'n'Rollers would already be fans of the guitar...
And to the comments about bands like Arcade Fire... I don't think they could ever be a world beating band... I don't want to cause offence to anyone, but the world-beating bands are British... The Beatles, the Rolling Stones, Oasis, U2 (some may differ whether they're British, but whatever)... Britain is where it's at when it comes to dominating music... Sorry, but that's just how I see it.
|
|
|
|
Post by His Royal Noelness on Jul 9, 2011 12:54:49 GMT -5
U2 are not British.
|
|
|
|
Post by deasy on Jul 9, 2011 14:23:38 GMT -5
U2 are from Dublin ffs  If you can claim U2 then Oasis are Irish |
|
|
|
Post by Shockmaster on Jul 9, 2011 17:43:39 GMT -5
HAHA. Well, some people count them as British... TBH, I dont' like them, so I don't class them as British... But there are some people that do... so, y'know... If you want, I can change it and say that U2 are an exception... but they're bloody close enough to Britain! |
|
) the other day. For me, it's hard to fully understand the extent of Oasis' popularity back in the nineties, but he said that in the last ten years, no band (not Coldplay, not Muse) has even come close to match Oasis in terms of size. However, the rise in popularity was too short to categorise Oasis as a fully grown stadium rock act like U2. 
Nov 4, 2024 5:04:30 GMT -5
Nov 4, 2024 5:04:30 GMT -5