|
|
Post by caro on Jul 26, 2011 19:17:54 GMT -5
I like AM but there is absolutely no way their career is anything comparable to Oasis. The only band that I think is having a similar success to Oasis but with a very different progression in their career is Muse. Everything else that is kind of big is US (Foo Fighters, KOL...) or older (U2). Well... I guess there's Coldplay (vomits in the closest bush  ) (I feel I'm going to pay for this ;D) And I realize none of those bands are very new, ok? |
|
|
|
Post by lionsden® on Jul 26, 2011 21:17:00 GMT -5
I like AM but there is absolutely no way their career is anything comparable to Oasis. The only band that I think is having a similar success to Oasis but with a very different progression in their career is Muse. Everything else that is kind of big is US (Foo Fighters, KOL...) or older (U2). Well... I guess there's Coldplay (vomits in the closest bush ) (I feel I'm going to pay for this ;D) And I realize none of those bands are very new, ok? You like Coldplay. |
|
|
|
Post by StepOut on Jul 27, 2011 19:20:18 GMT -5
I like AM but there is absolutely no way their career is anything comparable to Oasis. The only band that I think is having a similar success to Oasis but with a very different progression in their career is Muse. Everything else that is kind of big is US (Foo Fighters, KOL...) or older (U2). Well... I guess there's Coldplay (vomits in the closest bush ) (I feel I'm going to pay for this ;D) And I realize none of those bands are very new, ok? You like Coldplay.  |
|
|
|
Post by lionsden® on Jul 29, 2011 22:03:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by rcknrollstar on Jul 30, 2011 5:42:38 GMT -5
I don't seem to understand their music. For example their latest single, hellcat shalala. Everyone seems to like that song, but I just don't see what's special about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by good-rebel on Jul 30, 2011 5:48:13 GMT -5
They've got the potential. AM is on my top 5 artists atm. Like all their albums. Turner's a great lyricist.
But I wouldn't consider them as the OASIS of their generation.
|
|
doco
Madferrit Fan
Posts: 89
|
Post by doco on Jul 30, 2011 18:09:26 GMT -5
I don't think there is an Oasis of this generation, The Libertines were about the best band of it and they imploded. I would consider both them and Kasabian far ahead of the Arctic Monkeys but none stand out like Oasis did
|
|
|
|
Post by LlAM on Jul 31, 2011 18:17:56 GMT -5
Lady Gaga is the new Oasis. Think about it.
|
|
Leezy
Madferrit Fan
Posts: 74
|
Post by Leezy on Aug 2, 2011 10:02:28 GMT -5
Hasn't been a 'band' anywhere near as successful as Oasis since the mid 90s, yeah you've got your Lady Gagas that are selling shitloads of albums at the moment, but there hasn't been a decent 'Rock' band since then thats come anywhere near them.
Yeah you had your 'Indie' period back in the early 2000's with The Libertines and Arctic Monkeys achieving a bit of success, but still nothing compared to Oasis. Same with the 'Alternative' bands of the early 00's as well (Coldplay, Athlete, Snow Patrol etc).
Funnily enough I was listening to Arctic Monkeys new album earlier this afternoon for the first time. Whilst they are definitely NOT the Oasis of 'our' generation, I do think they are a good band. Really like the fact that they seem to have grown out of the 'indie' style and found a new maturer sound.
|
|
|
|
Post by rmillis on Aug 14, 2011 12:21:11 GMT -5
Musically, I think the Arctic Monkeys and Oasis are both amazing. I am a firm believer that if the Arctic Monkeys came out with their debut album in 1994 they would have been just as big as Oasis. The Arctic Monkeys are huge in the Indie circle and they have branched out into the more mainstream sound. At a period in time where music piracy is king, I can only wonder how many albums the Arctic Monkeys could have sold.
|
|
|
|
Post by paulm on Aug 15, 2011 18:48:28 GMT -5
Say what you like, but after their lollapalooza set last week, they may have gain a some new state side fans. It's been getting rave reviews from a number of music blogs and it's about time.
|
|
|
|
Post by rmillis on Aug 20, 2011 1:24:29 GMT -5
The Arctic Monkeys debut album outsold Oasis's debut album. Not to mention that the Arctic Monkeys had an amazing sophomore album reminiscent of Oasis (Teddy Picker, Brianstorm, Fluorescent Adolescent, Do Me A Favour, etc....). Both bands had mediocre third albums while still maintaining popularity. The Arctic Monkeys fourth album blows SOTSOG out of the water.
They are both completely different bands! But they both enjoyed success and are extremely talented. This is just my honest opinion....
|
|
|
|
Post by gdforever on Aug 20, 2011 2:34:44 GMT -5
^ you are kidding yourself if you think that The AM sophomore album is comparable with Oasis'. That is where the AM fall down in comparison.
Oasis had the fastest selling debut, then one of the best selling, and then the fastest selling period. It really was an amazing run of popularity. I don't think anything the AM have ever released will ever reach the dizzying heights of a tune like Wonderwall.
Their start is comparable to Oasis' in terms of hype and sales. But they never managed to fully capitalize o n it like Oasis did with MG.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bittersweet Split on Aug 20, 2011 5:00:24 GMT -5
Now that I really think about it, they are comparable in so many ways.
I mean, you'll always have the Whatever People say I am v Definitely Maybe - and for me Def Maybe will always edge out, (fucking Sliiiiiide Awaaaaaaaaaayyyy) - but you've gotta admit that songs like I Bet You look Good on the Dancefloor and From the Ritz to the Rubble fit much better in the world of music today, so you can see why they would/could be equal.
Humbug and Be Here Now were both seen as pretty inaccessible, although both amazing - whether it was brought on from differentiating from ones known style, or a shitload of drugs.
Standing on the Shoulder of Giants and Suck It and See. And again - Library Pictures and Brick by Brick are almost the Little James, Put Your Money where Your Mouth is. Then above average tracks like Where did it all go wrong, all my own stunts, and Very Very Good ones (Go Let it Out, Sunday Morning Call) vs (Hellcat Spangled Shalalala, Piledriver Waltz, Thats where you're wrong, and currently Black Treacle for some reason). Of course, SOTSOG has Gas Panic and Roll it over. Pretty even there.
And now, my personal least favourite Arctic Monkeys Album, vs my favourite Oasis album.
Game over.
|
|
|
|
Post by Guigs on Aug 20, 2011 22:57:29 GMT -5
I don't know how this thread got to 9 pages but there is no way that Arctic Monkeys compare to the impact that Oasis had on an entire generation.
Maybe people here are too young to remember, but Oasis were on top of everything in the UK for a good number of years. Musically Oasis put out better songs, and influenced a hell of a lot more people. Everyone was trying to dress like them, everyone wanted to get their hair cut like them, and other bands wished they were as big as them.
Outside of the UK AM are pretty much unheard of, aside from small indie circles.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bring It On Dan on Aug 21, 2011 4:09:29 GMT -5
AM'S would've been as Oasis if they released WPSIATWIN in 1994. It's a different generation with a different attitude to music.
|
|
|
|
Post by gdforever on Aug 21, 2011 9:57:32 GMT -5
AM'S would've been as Oasis if they released WPSIATWIN in 1994. It's a different generation with a different attitude to music. Nah. WPSIAIWIN is where the comparisons are fair IMO. Where the Arctic Monkeys fall down in comparison is the sophmore album. FWN is a massive step down from WTSMG. If the height of Oasis influence and popularity and influence had ended with DM Oasis would not have been what they ended up being. WTSMG is integral to Oasis place in the musical landscape and Oasis fans chronically underestimate it IMO. It was the reason that they could play Knebworth, they would never have been album to do that on the strength of DM. It was the reason that BHN got the big hype. IF they had released a mediocre album following DM instead of the juggernaut that was WTSMG they would have faded quickly from relevancy and gone the way of the rest of their Britpop compatriots and BHN would never have been the fastest selling album in the UK and whatever their sophmore album had been wasn't guaranteed to sell the massive amounts that WTSMG. They would have been just another promising band with a mega debut that couldn't capitalise on the momentum. Oasis had that amazing 1-2 punch right out of the gate and THAT is what made them so amazing. The AM had the 1 but not the 2 |
|
|
|
Post by rmillis on Aug 21, 2011 15:04:06 GMT -5
^ you are kidding yourself if you think that The AM sophomore album is comparable with Oasis'. That is where the AM fall down in comparison. Oasis had the fastest selling debut, then one of the best selling, and then the fastest selling period. It really was an amazing run of popularity. I don't think anything the AM have ever released will ever reach the dizzying heights of a tune like Wonderwall. Their start is comparable to Oasis' in terms of hype and sales. But they never managed to fully capitalize o n it like Oasis did with MG. I think FWN is a better album than WTSMG. It's just an opinion. I don't lie to myself or lie to you. I feel like WTSMG has too much filler. I'm not a fan of Hey Now, Cast No Shadow, Some Might Say, or Roll With It. Wonderwall, Don't Look Back in Anger, and Champagne Supernova are AMAZING SONGS! FWN has Teddy Picker, Brianstorm, D is for Dangerous, Fluorescent Adolescent, and so on. These are classics to me. FWN has been my fav album since it came out. Just my opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by rmillis on Aug 21, 2011 15:10:18 GMT -5
I don't know how this thread got to 9 pages but there is no way that Arctic Monkeys compare to the impact that Oasis had on an entire generation. Maybe people here are too young to remember, but Oasis were on top of everything in the UK for a good number of years. Musically Oasis put out better songs, and influenced a hell of a lot more people. Everyone was trying to dress like them, everyone wanted to get their hair cut like them, and other bands wished they were as big as them. Outside of the UK AM are pretty much unheard of, aside from small indie circles. Did it ever occur to you that this thread is 9 pages because it is a valid argument? Maybe you don't realize that the music industry has completely changed since Oasis hit it big. The Arctic Monkeys achieved success at a time when the music industry was in the shitter and surpassed Oasis with the fastest selling debut album in UK history. What bothers me the most is that you say "Oasis put out better songs". Not only is this an obvious opinion but you make it seem like the Arctic Monkeys aren't putting out good songs. Every single album they have released have been critically acclaimed and have sold a good amount of copies in a time when people rarely buy music anymore. |
|
|
|
Post by rmillis on Aug 21, 2011 15:11:51 GMT -5
AM'S would've been as Oasis if they released WPSIATWIN in 1994. It's a different generation with a different attitude to music. Exactly. |
|
|
|
Post by gdforever on Aug 21, 2011 15:21:56 GMT -5
^ you are kidding yourself if you think that The AM sophomore album is comparable with Oasis'. That is where the AM fall down in comparison. Oasis had the fastest selling debut, then one of the best selling, and then the fastest selling period. It really was an amazing run of popularity. I don't think anything the AM have ever released will ever reach the dizzying heights of a tune like Wonderwall. Their start is comparable to Oasis' in terms of hype and sales. But they never managed to fully capitalize o n it like Oasis did with MG. I think FWN is a better album than WTSMG. It's just an opinion. I don't lie to myself or lie to you. I feel like WTSMG has too much filler. I'm not a fan of Hey Now, Cast No Shadow, Some Might Say, or Roll With It. Wonderwall, Don't Look Back in Anger, and Champagne Supernova are AMAZING SONGS! FWN has Teddy Picker, Brianstorm, D is for Dangerous, Fluorescent Adolescent, and so on. These are classics to me. FWN has been my fav album since it came out. Just my opinion. That's fine that you like it. But what was being discussed on this thread is whether the Arctic Monkeys place in the music is comparable to that of Oasis. They're popularity never increased beyond what it had been around that first album. You can think that FWN is the best album in rock history (and I realize that isn't what you said) and the fact is that compared to an album like WTSMG it was barely a blip on the radar as far as how the music buying public reacted to it. The fact is that the AM haven't had a top 10 single in 4 years...Oasis have had 3...and that is 10-15 years after their peak and in the exact same music market In some ways the AM have a better career than Oasis. They have maintained a great level of good will and generally postive critical reception. They inhabit and respectable position in the musical landscape but not the same one as Oasis. And a big reason is that they have never been as popular as Oasis were @ their height. |
|
|
|
Post by rmillis on Aug 21, 2011 15:31:12 GMT -5
I think FWN is a better album than WTSMG. It's just an opinion. I don't lie to myself or lie to you. I feel like WTSMG has too much filler. I'm not a fan of Hey Now, Cast No Shadow, Some Might Say, or Roll With It. Wonderwall, Don't Look Back in Anger, and Champagne Supernova are AMAZING SONGS! FWN has Teddy Picker, Brianstorm, D is for Dangerous, Fluorescent Adolescent, and so on. These are classics to me. FWN has been my fav album since it came out. Just my opinion. That's fine that you like it. But what was being discussed on this thread is whether the Arctic Monkeys place in the music is comparable to that of Oasis. They're popularity never increased beyond what it had been around that first album. You can think that FWN is the best album in rock history (and I realize that isn't what you said) and the fact is that compared to an album like WTSMG it was barely a blip on the radar as far as how the music buying public reacted to it. The fact is that the AM haven't had a top 10 single in 4 years...Oasis have had 3...and that is 10-15 years after their peak and in the exact same music market In some ways the AM have a better career than Oasis. They have maintained a great level of good will and generally postive critical reception. They inhabit and respectable position in the musical landscape but not the same one as Oasis. And a big reason is that they have never been as popular as Oasis were @ their height. I agree with you on many of the points you presented. I just feel like people are missing the fact that these bands occupied two separate era's. That is the problem with doing threads like this. I personally feel like the AM's are making great music and the market isn't accurately displaying their greatness. All I am saying is that I love Oasis and the Arctic Monkeys. The Arctic Monkeys are the Oasis of "my" generation. Or maybe a better way of putting it is that they are just as important to me as Oasis was. Also imo I think if Oasis came out with DM in 2006 it would have had the same effect WPSIATWIN did. I will not budge from this opinion!! haha |
|
|
|
Post by gdforever on Aug 21, 2011 15:42:06 GMT -5
That's fine that you like it. But what was being discussed on this thread is whether the Arctic Monkeys place in the music is comparable to that of Oasis. They're popularity never increased beyond what it had been around that first album. You can think that FWN is the best album in rock history (and I realize that isn't what you said) and the fact is that compared to an album like WTSMG it was barely a blip on the radar as far as how the music buying public reacted to it. The fact is that the AM haven't had a top 10 single in 4 years...Oasis have had 3...and that is 10-15 years after their peak and in the exact same music market In some ways the AM have a better career than Oasis. They have maintained a great level of good will and generally postive critical reception. They inhabit and respectable position in the musical landscape but not the same one as Oasis. And a big reason is that they have never been as popular as Oasis were @ their height. I agree with you on many of the points you presented. I just feel like people are missing the fact that these bands occupied two separate era's. That is the problem with doing threads like this. I personally feel like the AM's are making great music and the market isn't accurately displaying their greatness. All I am saying is that I love Oasis and the Arctic Monkeys. The Arctic Monkeys are the Oasis of "my" generation. Or maybe a better way of putting it is that they are just as important to me as Oasis was. Also imo I think if Oasis came out with DM in 2006 it would have had the same effect WPSIATWIN did. I will not budge from this opinion!! haha I'm not arguing about whether or not the music is of a quality. But I refuse to believe that the music world felt the same way about the AM around the release of FWN as Oasis when WTSMG was released. Or anticipated Humbug the way that BHN was anticipated. It seems to me that Oasis, when they were of their generation, cast a much larger shadow than anything the AM have acheived. Oasis stood head and shoulders above their Britpop peers in terms of popularity. Do the AM do the same amongst their peers? No, they sit comfortably amongst them. The fact is that the Oasis of your generation probably isn't a rock band. I don't know what the teens are listening to. But I doubt that 1 in 5 houses in the UK have a copy of an AM record in their household. Illegally downloaded or not. THAT is the point I am making. |
|
|
|
Post by Headmaster on Aug 21, 2011 15:49:59 GMT -5
Some of these comparisons are make me laugh, AM is not even close to Oasis in any category: albums, memorable songs, great gigs, cultural impact, defining generation moments, charismatic bandmembers and the list goes on...
Hell, in the 90's Oasis stood above great bands like Blur, Radiohead, Pulp and even battled with Spice Girls for popularity, what AM stood above? Kaiser Chiefs, Bloc Party, Franz Ferdinand??
What I think AM is missing the most is the memorable songs, their last album is lacking, Suck it and See is a bunch of ordinary songs, even Humbug had Cornestone and Crying Lightning. Even Oasis worst album had some great songs in it.
|
|
|
|
Post by rmillis on Aug 21, 2011 23:57:18 GMT -5
Some of these comparisons are make me laugh, AM is not even close to Oasis in any category: albums, memorable songs, great gigs, cultural impact, defining generation moments, charismatic bandmembers and the list goes on... Hell, in the 90's Oasis stood above great bands like Blur, Radiohead, Pulp and even battled with Spice Girls for popularity, what AM stood above? Kaiser Chiefs, Bloc Party, Franz Ferdinand?? What I think AM is missing the most is the memorable songs, their last album is lacking, Suck it and See is a bunch of ordinary songs, even Humbug had Cornestone and Crying Lightning. Even Oasis worst album had some great songs in it. I think it's funny that you believe what you just posted. I can't describe how much I disagree with your post. You should probably wiki the Arctic Monkeys because I don't think you know much about them. To say the weren't a cultural impact or that they have no memorable songs is extremely funny. You are hilarious. Oh and I forgot we were having this discussion on Oasis forum  |
|
)
Nov 4, 2024 5:04:30 GMT -5