|
|
Post by Rain on May 23, 2014 21:16:38 GMT -5
Oasis, even considering the walkouts, spitting on stages, open drug use - back in the 90's not many bands were that open about using drugs, being very british, never released any albums after and as great as Definitely Maybe and as commercial as (What's the Story) Morning Glory? and that's why they never "conquered" america. God bless. Plus the American's were listening to awful winy wafer thin grunge rock, MOR rock and soon rap and rap metal like limp Bizkit, only a few got it like The Killers and some of the American fan's on this boar but sadly Oasis and America didn't mix.
The American's were never as cool as the British Band's, only Nirvana you could say were cool but even Cobain downbeat depressing mood and heroin use was pathetic, never bought into that side of his legend. Great songwriter and guitarist but he was never like the Gallaghers, who looked cool, loved the fame, took a load of drugs and weren't ashamed in making millions. Yeah the American's and Glam metal period but those bands sucked only Gun's n Roses had it but they became silly too thanks to Axl. Although the "mad for it" thing became tiring after 97, they were a breath of fresh air but they were very very British and they are everything the American's hate, they didn't give a fuck what anyone thought and they said it.
Nirvana was huge world wide including the UK too. Kurt never claimed to be a great guitarist or songwriter. Kurt pushed Nirvana to fame, but once gotten there. He didn't want it, but he didn't realized his band or him be the talk of the world. The band never expect that type of fame. We all had one time or another pushed for something, but once we gotten there it wasn't roses. BTW if someone told me if I had to pick either OK Computer with The Bends or Mellon Collie and the Infinite Sadness with Siamese Dream.. All day I pick the pumpkins. Especially if you talk 90's albums. Influenced pumpkins had in the 90's far none. Billy Corgan said he piss on Radiohead. MTV Billy piss all over Radiohead |
|
|
|
Post by Lennon2217 on May 23, 2014 23:35:29 GMT -5
Plus the American's were listening to awful winy wafer thin grunge rock, MOR rock and soon rap and rap metal like limp Bizkit, only a few got it like The Killers and some of the American fan's on this boar but sadly Oasis and America didn't mix.
The American's were never as cool as the British Band's, only Nirvana you could say were cool but even Cobain downbeat depressing mood and heroin use was pathetic, never bought into that side of his legend. Great songwriter and guitarist but he was never like the Gallaghers, who looked cool, loved the fame, took a load of drugs and weren't ashamed in making millions. Yeah the American's and Glam metal period but those bands sucked only Gun's n Roses had it but they became silly too thanks to Axl. Although the "mad for it" thing became tiring after 97, they were a breath of fresh air but they were very very British and they are everything the American's hate, they didn't give a fuck what anyone thought and they said it.
Nirvana was huge world wide including the UK too. Kurt never claimed to be a great guitarist or songwriter. Kurt pushed Nirvana to fame, but once gotten there. He didn't want it, but he didn't realized his band or him be the talk of the world. The band never expect that type of fame. We all had one time or another pushed for something, but once we gotten there it wasn't roses. BTW if someone told me if I had to pick either OK Computer with The Bends or Mellon Collie and the Infinite Sadness with Siamese Dream.. All day I pick the pumpkins. Especially if you talk 90's albums. Influenced pumpkins had in the 90's far none. Billy Corgan said he piss on Radiohead. MTV Billy piss all over RadioheadI never understood Billy Corgan's point with Radiohead. They never claimed to be anything better than anyone else. It's the music press that makes outrageous claims at times on their behalf. Radiohead are very reserved, never openly diss other bands unless attacked first. I think the big difference between Nirvana, Oasis, Pearl Jam, Smashing Pumpkins and Radiohead is that only one of those bands continued making brilliant albums over a 20 year period. Radiohead still going strong in 2014. Corgan would kill to be so relevant in 2014 and I say that as a Pumpkins supporter. |
|
|
|
Post by Let It🩸 on May 24, 2014 2:16:45 GMT -5
Oasis, even considering the walkouts, spitting on stages, open drug use - back in the 90's not many bands were that open about using drugs, being very british, never released any albums after and as great as Definitely Maybe and as commercial as (What's the Story) Morning Glory? and that's why they never "conquered" america. God bless. Plus the American's were listening to awful winy wafer thin grunge rock, MOR rock and soon rap and rap metal like limp Bizkit, only a few got it like The Killers and some of the American fan's on this boar but sadly Oasis and America didn't mix.
The American's were never as cool as the British Band's, only Nirvana you could say were cool but even Cobain downbeat depressing mood and heroin use was pathetic, never bought into that side of his legend. Great songwriter and guitarist but he was never like the Gallaghers, who looked cool, loved the fame, took a load of drugs and weren't ashamed in making millions. Yeah the American's and Glam metal period but those bands sucked only Gun's n Roses had it but they became silly too thanks to Axl. Although the "mad for it" thing became tiring after 97, they were a breath of fresh air but they were very very British and they are everything the American's hate, they didn't give a fuck what anyone thought and they said it.
i'll always have a soft spot for Nirvana because they were first band i truly loved that were relevant in my lifetime. Oasis is the other band i feel that way about like the Guns n Roses mention, it's cool to shit on them but they wrote some great songs and albums, had some cheesy lyrics and themes but they were fucking awesome and weren't a manufactured band. i really like this thread, one of the best. God bless. |
|
|
|
Post by Lennon2217 on May 24, 2014 10:59:52 GMT -5
Plus the American's were listening to awful winy wafer thin grunge rock, MOR rock and soon rap and rap metal like limp Bizkit, only a few got it like The Killers and some of the American fan's on this boar but sadly Oasis and America didn't mix.
The American's were never as cool as the British Band's, only Nirvana you could say were cool but even Cobain downbeat depressing mood and heroin use was pathetic, never bought into that side of his legend. Great songwriter and guitarist but he was never like the Gallaghers, who looked cool, loved the fame, took a load of drugs and weren't ashamed in making millions. Yeah the American's and Glam metal period but those bands sucked only Gun's n Roses had it but they became silly too thanks to Axl. Although the "mad for it" thing became tiring after 97, they were a breath of fresh air but they were very very British and they are everything the American's hate, they didn't give a fuck what anyone thought and they said it.
i'll always have a soft spot for Nirvana because they were first band i truly loved that were relevant in my lifetime. Oasis is the other band i feel that way about like the Guns n Roses mention, it's cool to shit on them but they wrote some great songs and albums, had some cheesy lyrics and themes but they were fucking awesome and weren't a manufactured band. i really like this thread, one of the best. God bless. I think it makes a for a brilliant sign of the times the division in rock when you had Guns n Roses at their peak in 1991 with all the rock n roll excess and then the arrival of Nirvana, a band who would steal their thunder, make them look lame and act like they didn't give a shit. Nirvana sold like 20 million records before Kurt died and he still drove a shitty ass Volvo.   |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2014 12:24:49 GMT -5
After reading All of this thread I have come to the conclusion it's probably the most apples to oranges threads ever .....it's llike trying to compare historically the Beatles to zep
There just so different , Radiohead made some good shit , like the Beatles did , I much prefer oasis and zep , and really I can't compare historically because there coming at things musically from 2 different styles , like comparing do you prefer certain assets on a woman's body over another , some may love 1 over another , but the other is the bees knees to another person .
All this deep introspective retorts would be better if you could actually compare the two ,other than the era , they have no similarities except siblings are involved IMO
|
|
|
|
Post by Sternumman on May 24, 2014 14:01:10 GMT -5
I think Oasis was much bigger than Arctic Monkeys ever were in the USA.  AM has broken them pretty big in the states with headlining Gigs in Arena's to be fair and they had a number 1 single with Do you Wanna know. They ain't too far behind Lennon if there next release is another classic then they will break big time. But Oasis only really troubled the States with WTSMG (thanks to Wonderwall) and BHN but yeah Oasis probably made more of a splash as they had a number 2 album there but Monkeys will be bigger States side you can trust me on that one.That might be one of the silliest comments I've ever read on here. WTSMG sold 4 million copies alone. Do you know how much the top selling album sold in the US last year? 2.3M by Justin Timberlake. Even Coldplay which has sold way more records than Oasis in the US has only had one album go 4x platinum like WTSMG did. The Monkeys didnt have a number 1 single. They topped the alternative charts for a week. Rock is dead in America unfortunately and even if they were the biggest band in the US they would never sniff the amount of record sales that Oasis did. |
|
|
|
Post by Sternumman on May 24, 2014 14:27:07 GMT -5
Simple, nothing was bigger than the 90's than Nirvana and Oasis. Radiohead most likely 10 or lower on biggest impact bands of the 90's. Don't get me wrong OK Computer album was decent, but RHCP, Smashing Pumpkins, Pearl Jam and more had bigger impact. This is why I can't compare Oasis to Radiohead. How are we classifying impact? RHCP were huge but they arent my thing(subjective I know) besides a few songs off of the albums One Hot minute, Californication, and Blood Sugar Sex Magic. The Pumpkins had two great albums but have been irrelevant since 95. Ive seen Pearl Jam several times and they put on a great show. Between 91-98 they put out 5 really good albums but their last five excluding a few songs have not been very good. All those bands outsold Radiohead but Radiohead is the only ones still putting out great music. Next post is #1000. I need a life. |
|
|
|
Post by Lennon2217 on May 24, 2014 14:42:21 GMT -5
AM has broken them pretty big in the states with headlining Gigs in Arena's to be fair and they had a number 1 single with Do you Wanna know. They ain't too far behind Lennon if there next release is another classic then they will break big time. But Oasis only really troubled the States with WTSMG (thanks to Wonderwall) and BHN but yeah Oasis probably made more of a splash as they had a number 2 album there but Monkeys will be bigger States side you can trust me on that one.That might be one of the silliest comments I've ever read on here. WTSMG sold 4 million copies alone. Do you know how much the top selling album sold in the US last year? 2.3M by Justin Timberlake. Even Coldplay which has sold way more records than Oasis in the US has only had one album go 4x platinum like WTSMG did. The Monkeys didnt have a number 1 single. They topped the alternative charts for a week. Rock is dead in America unfortunately and even if they were the biggest band in the US they would never sniff the amount of record sales that Oasis did. Oasis was huge in America between 1995 and 1997. Videos all over television. Singles constantly spun on the radio. I don't think Arctic Monkeys will achieve such success commecially. The only other UK bands that do are Radiohead, Coldplay and Muse. Arctic Monkeys will achieve moderate impact in the USA like Travis and The Verve. I like AM, but I haven't seen the same sort of adulation for them in America like I did for Oasis in the 90s. |
|
|
|
Post by space75gr on Jun 23, 2014 5:17:20 GMT -5
i voted for Oasis cause is my favorite band ever and one of the greatest.
BUT i also believe that Radiohead are better than Oasis. Actually Radiohead is the best band ever in my opinion. Nothing can beat their discography even The Beatles, The Rolling Stones or the Floyd!.
on the other hand they are two totally different bands, two totally different worlds that work perfect in my life
|
|
|
|
Post by lahaine on Jun 23, 2014 19:35:09 GMT -5
That might be one of the silliest comments I've ever read on here. WTSMG sold 4 million copies alone. Do you know how much the top selling album sold in the US last year? 2.3M by Justin Timberlake. Even Coldplay which has sold way more records than Oasis in the US has only had one album go 4x platinum like WTSMG did. The Monkeys didnt have a number 1 single. They topped the alternative charts for a week. Rock is dead in America unfortunately and even if they were the biggest band in the US they would never sniff the amount of record sales that Oasis did. Oasis was huge in America between 1995 and 1997. Videos all over television. Singles constantly spun on the radio. I don't think Arctic Monkeys will achieve such success commecially. The only other UK bands that do are Radiohead, Coldplay and Muse. Arctic Monkeys will achieve moderate impact in the USA like Travis and The Verve. I like AM, but I haven't seen the same sort of adulation for them in America like I did for Oasis in the 90s. Wait and see, that's all I say. Moderate Impact? Did Travis and The Verve sell out Madison Square Garden or the Staples Centre. I don't think either of those band's come close to the AM in America. have a read of this and it answer it all.
www.theguardian.com/music/2014/feb/11/arctic-monkeys-america-finally-victory
I won't say they are A-lister's in terms of Coldplay's but they are a far bigger then you give them credit for.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lennon2217 on Jun 23, 2014 20:39:36 GMT -5
Oasis was huge in America between 1995 and 1997. Videos all over television. Singles constantly spun on the radio. I don't think Arctic Monkeys will achieve such success commecially. The only other UK bands that do are Radiohead, Coldplay and Muse. Arctic Monkeys will achieve moderate impact in the USA like Travis and The Verve. I like AM, but I haven't seen the same sort of adulation for them in America like I did for Oasis in the 90s. Wait and see, that's all I say. Moderate Impact? Did Travis and The Verve sell out Madison Square Garden or the Staples Centre. I don't think either of those band's come close to the AM in America. have a read of this and it answer it all.
www.theguardian.com/music/2014/feb/11/arctic-monkeys-america-finally-victory
I won't say they are A-lister's in terms of Coldplay's but they are a far bigger then you give them credit for.
My point was that AM fall between the big time commercial success of bands like Oasis/Radiohead/Coldplay/Muse and Travis/Verve. Trust me, selling out MSG ain't what it use to mean. You should see some of the bands that "sell out" that venue. Sometimes they don't even sell the top levels yet still declare the event a sellout. |
|
|
|
Post by Sternumman on Jun 23, 2014 21:37:44 GMT -5
Oasis was huge in America between 1995 and 1997. Videos all over television. Singles constantly spun on the radio. I don't think Arctic Monkeys will achieve such success commecially. The only other UK bands that do are Radiohead, Coldplay and Muse. Arctic Monkeys will achieve moderate impact in the USA like Travis and The Verve. I like AM, but I haven't seen the same sort of adulation for them in America like I did for Oasis in the 90s. Wait and see, that's all I say. Moderate Impact? I won't say they are A-lister's in terms of Coldplay's but they are a far bigger then you give them credit for.
They sold 42k albums in their first week of sales in the US for AM. Thats less than FWN sold in its first week. Coldplay sold almost 10 x's that amount in its first week. I love AM's. Saw them on the Suck It And See Tour in Fl. The show was sold out but it was in a night club that holds 1,300 people. They have had moderate success here in the states. Comparing them to the Verve. Yes it was different times but Urban Hymns sold 1.3 m coppies in the US. AM has sold about 200k and Bittersweet Symphony was a bigger song stateside than anything AM has ever released. |
|
|
|
Post by Headmaster on Jun 23, 2014 22:52:50 GMT -5
What is the most memorable Arctic Monkeys song in USA??
None, I guess.
To establish over there, AM really need a hit.
|
|
|
|
Post by matt on Jun 23, 2014 23:02:53 GMT -5
I like Radiohead, but Thom Yorke is just Morrissey without any wit!
|
|
|
|
Post by Let It🩸 on Jun 24, 2014 3:33:54 GMT -5
Arctic Monkeys don't have a mega hit like 'Wonderwall' or 'Don't Look Back In Anger', basically they're just not commercial enough. it's very easy to avoid the Arctic Monkeys, their songs are basically only played on alternative stations, Oasis were unavoidable in 95-97 in the U.S.
plus, aren't the Arctic Monkeys on like their 4th or 5th album by now? don't see them all of the sudden becoming extraordinary, that normally happens around around album 2 or 3 with bands. but the singer is still young, what is he, 14 or 15 years old?
God bless.
|
|
|
|
Post by Headmaster on Jun 24, 2014 10:21:03 GMT -5
There are bands which took longer to make it big in USA, like The Cure for exemple, only on their 8th album they broke over there, but before that they were releasing some hits in USA like Boy's Don't Cry, In Between Days and Just Like Heaven.
There is also REM, despite being an american band, they only broke big there on their 5th album, but before that they released some hits like So. Central Rain and Fall On Me.
I don't see AM doing this, without memorable songs they will soon be forgotten in America
|
|
|
|
Post by allingoodtime on Jun 24, 2014 13:28:35 GMT -5
i voted for Oasis cause is my favorite band ever and one of the greatest.BUT i also believe that Radiohead are better than Oasis. Actually Radiohead is the best band ever in my opinion. Nothing can beat their discography even The Beatles, The Rolling Stones or the Floyd!. on the other hand they are two totally different bands, two totally different worlds that work perfect in my life Radiohead the best band ever? Not even the Beatles or Pink Floyd?? I need to lie down.. |
|
|
|
Post by space75gr on Jun 25, 2014 3:06:00 GMT -5
i voted for Oasis cause is my favorite band ever and one of the greatest.BUT i also believe that Radiohead are better than Oasis. Actually Radiohead is the best band ever in my opinion. Nothing can beat their discography even The Beatles, The Rolling Stones or the Floyd!. on the other hand they are two totally different bands, two totally different worlds that work perfect in my life Radiohead the best band ever? Not even the Beatles or Pink Floyd?? I need to lie down.. yep! its hard to say it but thats what i believe.it somehow sounds extreme but when i look and hear Radiohead's discography thats the only thing that comes in my mind. 5 masterpieces (The Bends, OK Computer, Kid A, Amnesiac, In Rainbows) 2 very good albums (Hail To The Thief, The Kings of Limps) 1 good (Pablo Honey). even if they are not better at least they are equal |
|
|
|
Post by allingoodtime on Jun 25, 2014 4:16:57 GMT -5
I can't see the fuss in certain bands like Radiohead (who depress me with their music), Kings of Leon (cant stand the vocalists voice) and The arctic monkeys (haven't listened to them a lot but from the songs i've heard they're not my type).
Oasis were one of a kind and imo their b-sides are better than the songs of the 3 bands i mentioned.
The masterplan, cloudburst, listen up, acquiesce, stay young, the swamp song, going nowhere etc etc.
People nowadays slag them off cos I guess its the thing to do, and once it becomes a 'thing' people are like sheep and just follow..but lets face it, if they were to re-unite they could easily become number 1 in the world again
|
|
|
|
Post by beentherenow on Jun 25, 2014 6:06:39 GMT -5
I can't see the fuss in certain bands like Radiohead (who depress me with their music), Kings of Leon (cant stand the vocalists voice) and The arctic monkeys (haven't listened to them a lot but from the songs i've heard they're not my type). Oasis were one of a kind and imo their b-sides are better than the songs of the 3 bands i mentioned. The masterplan, cloudburst, listen up, acquiesce, stay young, the swamp song, going nowhere etc etc. People nowadays slag them off cos I guess its the thing to do, and once it becomes a 'thing' people are like sheep and just follow..but lets face it, if they were to re-unite they could easily become number 1 in the world again I agree, I think in 5-10 years time if they don't reform it'll suddenly become cool to like Oasis again, As soon as a new generation discover Oasis but aren't bombarded with the media side of things with a preconception of the Gallagher brothers, they can instead just focus on the music. God can you imagine being a 15 year old discovering Oasis and listening to Definitely Maybe, MG, Be Here Now and The Masterplan for the first time!? It happens with every band. In the late 70's/early 80's (maybe you could argue right up until 94) Pink Floyd were considered pretty uncool, "music for school teachers" was one of the first quotes I heard. Now they're the bees knees again. Same with The Beatles to a lesser extent when The Stones were considered the 'cooler' of the two groups. Perhaps the Stones still are but their music cannot even be compared The Who were a bit laughable in the 80's but their legacy is well is tact |
|
|
|
Post by Headmaster on Jun 25, 2014 9:26:20 GMT -5
5 masterpieces
Amnesiac
...
|
|
|
|
Post by shinealight on Jun 27, 2014 7:11:43 GMT -5
As it is obvious we all love Oasis I m not gonna analyze them
But Radiohead are so average that it hurts. Nothing what would make them special in any way...not music (average at best) not charm or charisma...not live shows....nothing
I would rather watch Miley Cyrus or ehat s her name on have a quick wank than listen to radiohead...cause their music is too depressing ever for wanking
|
|
|
|
Post by Cast on Jun 27, 2014 11:33:13 GMT -5
Radiohead is the better band.
Oasis means more to people/has more impactful songs.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sternumman on Jun 28, 2014 6:00:19 GMT -5
But Radiohead are so average that it hurts. Nothing what would make them special in any way...not music (average at best) not live shows. Thought they put on one of the better shows I've ever seen. They were far better than the two times I saw Oasis live. I understand not liking them. There are plenty of bands that I dont like that get critical and commercial success. But to call them average is silly. If only Jonny Greenwood was an average musician. The world would be filled with great music not the crap that is filling our airwaves. |
|
|
|
Post by Let It🩸 on Jul 12, 2014 12:15:25 GMT -5
|
|
Nov 4, 2024 5:04:30 GMT -5
Nov 4, 2024 5:04:30 GMT -5