|
Post by webm@ster on Mar 27, 2013 12:46:20 GMT -5
Despite of all the successes that Oasis had with their front-men Liam and Noel Gallagher Sir Paul believes the band's repeated claims they wanted to be as big as the Beatles only meant that they would come up short. Macca adds that no one can replicate what his band did in the 1960s. Talking to Q magazine, he said: "I'm actually kind of honored (when bands copy us) - they could be copying anyone. Even when things happen like Oasis saying, 'We are the next Beatles.' But I also think, 'Listen, lads, you can't say that. And don't say that because it's probably the kiss of death!' See what else Macca had to say on Oasis in our Ezine
|
|
|
Post by Headmaster on Mar 27, 2013 14:44:34 GMT -5
He is totally right, that comparison was just wrong, it was good only for promoting the band at the time, but also because of this many saw the Gallaghers as pretentious twats.
|
|
|
Post by gdforever on Mar 27, 2013 15:06:20 GMT -5
It's not just the "next Beatles" that is a curse. It's the next anything.
Think of all the bands that were supposed to be the next Oasis. There have been tons of them. None of them quite make it to that level though. If you are ever compared to anyone good you will always struggle. They seems to judge almost every tune against the best of another artist/bands entire work. And they always cite a lack of relative cultural impact and assert a project of them being a transient fad. But then pretty much every great band starts out with it's share of "people won't still be singing those songs in 20 years like they are still singing "band x"s." And of course a band started 20 years ago will have had more chance to have an influence.
Oasis definitely played it up though which didn't do them any favours in the long run. Usually the moment the media cites someone as the "next whatever" they try begin to fight against it and distance themselves.. No one wants to be pigeon-holed. Oasis embraced the comparison with gusto...which gave all the journos license to beat them over the head with it.
|
|
|
Post by WirralRiddler on Mar 27, 2013 15:08:04 GMT -5
What did they actually say though? did they (liam or noel) really say they would be bigger than the Beatles or was it just that they wanted to be, there is a difference.
They were forever saying the beatles were the bench mark and so on, but i don't recall them ever saying they would be bigger or better than the beatles?
|
|
|
Post by gdforever on Mar 27, 2013 15:30:13 GMT -5
What did they actually say though? did they (liam or noel) really say they would be bigger than the Beatles or was it just that they wanted to be, there is a difference. They were forever saying the beatles were the bench mark and so on, but i don't recall them ever saying they would be bigger or better than the beatles? In the Sunday Times 96 Liam said: "It's really important to be bigger than the Beatles. I think we're better than the Beatles. And we've only done two albums. It was different when they were around. We'd just come out of the war, and a bunch of scousers could make us happy again. I reckon we've pissed all over the Beatles. Masterplan - as good as anything; Roll With It - as good and Paperback Writer, Hard Day's Night. We wrote half the third album in 1991 and it betters the Beatles. They ain't the best band in the world - we are" They asked for it. Liam was always the most flamboyant and unrealistic so I am sure a good number of the really crazy statements came from him. Heck Liam said in 2011 "Fuck being as big as Oasis. I want to be bigger than the Beatles" about Beady Eye. Tbf around 1997 they were pretty damn close to being as big as the Beatles in the UK. Their debut was the fastest selling debut of all time. Their sophomore album was one of the biggest selling of all time. Their 3rd album was the fastest selling album ever (including the Beatles) a record that has been maintained to this day.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2013 15:54:17 GMT -5
What did they actually say though? did they (liam or noel) really say they would be bigger than the Beatles or was it just that they wanted to be, there is a difference. They were forever saying the beatles were the bench mark and so on, but i don't recall them ever saying they would be bigger or better than the beatles? In the Sunday Times 96 Liam said: "It's really important to be bigger than the Beatles. I think we're better than the Beatles. And we've only done two albums. It was different when they were around. We'd just come out of the war, and a bunch of scousers could make us happy again. I reckon we've pissed all over the Beatles. Masterplan - as good as anything; Roll With It - as good and Paperback Writer, Hard Day's Night. We wrote half the third album in 1991 and it betters the Beatles. They ain't the best band in the world - we are" They asked for it. Liam was always the most flamboyant and unrealistic so I am sure a good number of the really crazy statements came from him. Heck Liam said in 2011 "Fuck being as big as Oasis. I want to be bigger than the Beatles" about Beady Eye. Tbf around 1997 they were pretty damn close to being as big as the Beatles in the UK. Their debut was the fastest selling debut of all time. Their sophomore album was one of the biggest selling of all time. Their 3rd album was the fastest selling album ever (including the Beatles) a record that has been maintained to this day. Hey gd. Correct me II am wrong. May have been stoned. No clue. But I seem to rememnber after knebwortth Noel or Liam saying they were bigger than the stones now But I thought he meant it like " NOW." Meaning that Era .? I know when I returned stateside my friends were pissed that they said that. I basically told them f**k off that's there style am I tripping again or no ?
|
|
|
Post by gdforever on Mar 27, 2013 15:59:14 GMT -5
In the Sunday Times 96 Liam said: "It's really important to be bigger than the Beatles. I think we're better than the Beatles. And we've only done two albums. It was different when they were around. We'd just come out of the war, and a bunch of scousers could make us happy again. I reckon we've pissed all over the Beatles. Masterplan - as good as anything; Roll With It - as good and Paperback Writer, Hard Day's Night. We wrote half the third album in 1991 and it betters the Beatles. They ain't the best band in the world - we are" They asked for it. Liam was always the most flamboyant and unrealistic so I am sure a good number of the really crazy statements came from him. Heck Liam said in 2011 "Fuck being as big as Oasis. I want to be bigger than the Beatles" about Beady Eye. Tbf around 1997 they were pretty damn close to being as big as the Beatles in the UK. Their debut was the fastest selling debut of all time. Their sophomore album was one of the biggest selling of all time. Their 3rd album was the fastest selling album ever (including the Beatles) a record that has been maintained to this day. Hey gd. Correct me II am wrong. May have been stoned. No clue. But I seem to rememnber after knebwortth Noel or Liam saying they were bigger than the stones now But I thought he meant it like " NOW." Meaning that Era .? I know when I returned stateside my friends were pissed that they said that. I basically told them f**k off that's there style am I tripping again or no ? Sorry...huh? You mean they mean you think they meant they were bigger in the 90's than the Beatles in the 90's? That is possible. If that's true they definitely had a point. ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png) But he did say he thought they were better that the Beatles there...which isn't time specific and equally as boastful.
|
|
|
Post by Jake Rawlinson on Mar 27, 2013 16:00:32 GMT -5
In the Sunday Times 96 Liam said: "It's really important to be bigger than the Beatles. I think we're better than the Beatles. And we've only done two albums. It was different when they were around. We'd just come out of the war, and a bunch of scousers could make us happy again. I reckon we've pissed all over the Beatles. Masterplan - as good as anything; Roll With It - as good and Paperback Writer, Hard Day's Night. We wrote half the third album in 1991 and it betters the Beatles. They ain't the best band in the world - we are" They asked for it. Liam was always the most flamboyant and unrealistic so I am sure a good number of the really crazy statements came from him. Heck Liam said in 2011 "Fuck being as big as Oasis. I want to be bigger than the Beatles" about Beady Eye. Tbf around 1997 they were pretty damn close to being as big as the Beatles in the UK. Their debut was the fastest selling debut of all time. Their sophomore album was one of the biggest selling of all time. Their 3rd album was the fastest selling album ever (including the Beatles) a record that has been maintained to this day. Hey gd. Correct me II am wrong. May have been stoned. No clue. But I seem to rememnber after knebwortth Noel or Liam saying they were bigger than the stones now But I thought he meant it like " NOW." Meaning that Era .? I know when I returned stateside my friends were pissed that they said that. I basically told them f**k off that's there style am I tripping again or no ? you're tripping balls, bro. ![P-)](//storage.proboards.com/1258801/images/aISM4jCl_eWjI5L9xvHU.gif) God bless.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2013 16:06:26 GMT -5
Hey gd. Correct me II am wrong. May have been stoned. No clue. But I seem to rememnber after knebwortth Noel or Liam saying they were bigger than the stones now But I thought he meant it like " NOW." Meaning that Era .? I know when I returned stateside my friends were pissed that they said that. I basically told them f**k off that's there style am I tripping again or no ? Sorry...huh? You mean they mean you think they meant they were bigger in the 90's than the Beatles in the 90's? That is possible. If that's true they definitely had a point. ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png) But he did say he thought they were better that the Beatles there...which isn't time specific and equally as boastful. No GD I JUST EMAILED MY BUDDY I KNOW THE BEATLE BOASTS BUT AFTER THE BIG GIGS THEY MADE SIMILAR STATEMENTS REGARDING THE STONES THE BEATLE BOASTS I KNOW JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I AIN'T HALLUCINATING PARDON THE CAPLOCK JUST GOT IN FROM A RIDE ON MY BIKE CAN HARDLY SEE SCREEN MAN! I
|
|
|
Post by gdforever on Mar 27, 2013 16:09:26 GMT -5
Sorry...huh? You mean they mean you think they meant they were bigger in the 90's than the Beatles in the 90's? That is possible. If that's true they definitely had a point. ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png) But he did say he thought they were better that the Beatles there...which isn't time specific and equally as boastful. No GD I JUST EMAILED MY BUDDY I KNOW THE BEATLE BOASTS BUT AFTER THE BIG GIGS THEY MADE SIMILAR STATEMENTS REGARDING THE STONES THE BEATLE BOASTS I KNOW JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I AIN'T HALLUCINATING PARDON THE CAPLOCK JUST GOT IN FROM A RIDE ON MY BIKE CAN HARDLY SEE SCREEN MAN! I Oh right. Gotcha. I read that wrong. I have no clue about Stones comments. Anyone else?
|
|
|
Post by yearzero on Mar 27, 2013 16:36:21 GMT -5
I don't know about the Stones comments, but there was definitely an intense rivalry going on between the Beatles and the Stones, so I wouldn't be surprised if these comments existed. Of course we also have the famous Lennon quote about being more popular than Jesus ![:D](//storage.proboards.com/1258801/images/7QKGdm487eYnX65W8w0g.gif) But I agree with what's already been said--comparisons between bands are always inevitable, especially between bands that draw from similar influences. Like gdforever said, any time someone is made out to be the "next" thing, the comparisons are going to come from all corners and somewhere, someone's going to be fail the test. Obviously Oasis looked up to the Beatles and used them as THE benchmark. The obvious downfall of this was if they fell short of the benchmark, especially because Oasis was so public about their Beatles influence. And to loudly proclaim that they were going to be "bigger" or "better" is just asking for more trouble. It's better to let the music and everything else that follows to speak for themselves, and to allow the "public" to decide where Oasis stands in relation to the Beatles. I'm guessing that part of Liam and Noel's words back in those early days were fuelled to a large degree by the alcohol and drugs, and really to human nature--the glorious high of selling millions of records, tickets, t-shirts, and the adoration that accompanied all that, and the dizzying heights of youth. It'd be easy for them to let it go to their heads a bit, and who could blame them? ![:D](//storage.proboards.com/1258801/images/7QKGdm487eYnX65W8w0g.gif) (Liam doesn't really have those excuses anymore when he claims that Beady Eye will be bigger than the Beatles ![:P](//storage.proboards.com/1258801/images/A9bL_RjIN9bOhnrQxKjN.gif) ) And it's totally believable for an up-and-coming band to want to set high goals for themselves...problem is when the goal is as high as the Beatles, which had a universal cultural impact. There's an interview only about two years ago here with Noel: www.aol.com/video/huffpost-culture-noel-gallagher/517165992/where he is asked to compare himself to Paul McCartney (at 1:20 mark). Noel is asked to rank a bunch of questions on a scale of 1 to 10. The question at 1:20: "In 30 years Noel Gallagher will be considered as good as Paul McCartney." Noel has a long think about it, then says "highly unlikely" and then says "10" because you might as well "shoot for the stars." So Oasis shot for the stars...whether they hit or missed or fell somewhere in-between is up to anyone to decide.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2013 17:03:34 GMT -5
I don't know about the Stones comments, but there was definitely an intense rivalry going on between the Beatles and the Stones, so I wouldn't be surprised if these comments existed. Of course we also have the famous Lennon quote about being more popular than Jesus ![:D](//storage.proboards.com/1258801/images/7QKGdm487eYnX65W8w0g.gif) But I agree with what's already been said--comparisons between bands are always inevitable, especially between bands that draw from similar influences. Like gdforever said, any time someone is made out to be the "next" thing, the comparisons are going to come from all corners and somewhere, someone's going to be fail the test. Obviously Oasis looked up to the Beatles and used them as THE benchmark. The obvious downfall of this was if they fell short of the benchmark, especially because Oasis was so public about their Beatles influence. And to loudly proclaim that they were going to be "bigger" or "better" is just asking for more trouble. It's better to let the music and everything else that follows to speak for themselves, and to allow the "public" to decide where Oasis stands in relation to the Beatles. I'm guessing that part of Liam and Noel's words back in those early days were fuelled to a large degree by the alcohol and drugs, and really to human nature--the glorious high of selling millions of records, tickets, t-shirts, and the adoration that accompanied all that, and the dizzying heights of youth. It'd be easy for them to let it go to their heads a bit, and who could blame them? ![:D](//storage.proboards.com/1258801/images/7QKGdm487eYnX65W8w0g.gif) (Liam doesn't really have those excuses anymore when he claims that Beady Eye will be bigger than the Beatles ![:P](//storage.proboards.com/1258801/images/A9bL_RjIN9bOhnrQxKjN.gif) ) And it's totally believable for an up-and-coming band to want to set high goals for themselves...problem is when the goal is as high as the Beatles, which had a universal cultural impact. There's an interview only about two years ago here with Noel: www.aol.com/video/huffpost-culture-noel-gallagher/517165992/where he is asked to compare himself to Paul McCartney (at 1:20 mark). Noel is asked to rank a bunch of questions on a scale of 1 to 10. The question at 1:20: "In 30 years Noel Gallagher will be considered as good as Paul McCartney." Noel has a long think about it, then says "highly unlikely" and then says "10" because you might as well "shoot for the stars." So Oasis shot for the stars...whether they hit or missed or fell somewhere in-between is up to anyone to decide. Hey mate good to c ya Yea my buddy just emailed me back . They said that about stones nothing big just that in England they were now bigger than stones this is circa the madness years apparantly it was picked up by ny news and post .......it's no big deal ...I just was makin sure I'm not totally fried that's all ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/wink.png)
|
|
|
Post by spaneli on Mar 27, 2013 23:22:51 GMT -5
McCartney has said this before, nothing new here really.
I agree with GD. To be fair to Oasis, in the mid-90's they were extremely close too being the Beatles. The album sales, press, and the music speak for themselves.
In the end the comments bit them in the ass, but I think Noel once said, if you're not willing to beat the best then why do it.....or at least semblance of that. And I agree. The goal is to be the best and make great music. Like most things in Oasis' career, they could have played it safe. However, though some of their decisions may have limited them their success, one could argue that they wouldn't have had the same success had they continually played it safe. They had a ceiling, they hit, they never recovered. But their ceiling was a lot higher than many bands before, during, or since.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2013 12:00:47 GMT -5
At least they gave it a good shot and had the tunes to back up such hyperbolic statements for a few years in the 90s.
In other news: Kalas is a legend.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2013 12:16:25 GMT -5
At least they gave it a good shot and had the tunes to back up such hyperbolic statements for a few years in the 90s. In other news: Kalas is a legend. Cheers on that eppy Much appreciated ,, glad ingot some cool guys on here and ladies of course ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png) who like some of my thoughts and such ..lord knows I got alot of detractors as well deverdadly so from some of my past shit But thanks for keeping a open mind man ![8-)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/cool.png) Appreciate that man !
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2013 12:24:01 GMT -5
Ill say one thing about OASIS. And it's why I love them so much. Macca himself said alot of bands in the press were touted as next Beatles .....but OASIS SAID IT And yea impossible to live up to that ...but tell you what ...I would rather support a band that thinks that way from day one t Then plays it low key and humble. SAY WHAT YOU WANT. THEY WANTED TO BE AS BIG SO WHY NOT SAY IT. IF YOU FAIL YOU FAIL BUT IS NOT LIVING UP TO THE BEATLES A FAILURE ? Nobody could but for a brief time they gave it a helluva run. And I support that attitude to a Coldplay golly gee attitude anyday ! Look at tiger woods as a kid the only posters he had up were of Nicklaus he wanted to break jacks record of 18 majors. If he falls short should he be ridiculed for failing to break a record once deemed un breakable? HE'LL NO! He should be applauded for having the balls to say I want to be the best better than JACK JUST LIKE OASIS DID THAT'S WHY THEY ARE LEGENDS TO ME
|
|
|
Post by yeayeayeah on Mar 28, 2013 19:42:45 GMT -5
The Beatles said they were going to be bigger then Elvis, its all just part of the process.
|
|
|
Post by Lennon2217 on Mar 28, 2013 23:31:36 GMT -5
From my perspective of living in America and watching Oasis' rise to stardom in this country first hand, the Oasis/Beatles comparison initially helped them. The US music scene really bought into this "Oasis are the new Beatles" routine and it helped the band draw interest from a variety of media outlets. It also helped that the band had truly great songs during this period to back it all up (1994-1996). Generation X had this bizarro 60s thing going on when rock music became prominent again to the mainstream (Nirvana, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Pearl Jam, Smashing Pumpkins, etc). Oasis helped add to that music variety by offering a British flavor. They wrote great tunes, had a good looking frontman, they had beatles haircuts and talked "funny". Americans bought in, I know I sure did. ![8-)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/cool.png) However, it was not to last and the antics of the band soon over shadowed the music being reported toward the end of the 90s. It created a bad stigma in this country that Oasis was never really to shake off entirely, if ever. People saw them as Beatle copy cats when Be Here Now failed to repeat Morning Glory's success. Combine that with shifting trends in popular music and Oasis was dead in the water when SOTSOG came out in 2000. It was sad reading basically the same American album reviews of Oasis LPs. They always went two ways, comparing them to their past Beatle ambitions or "a return to form". I read that last line for every album since SOTSOG. An extremely cliched line. In America, the Oasis/Beatles comments were a double edged sword. It initially helped them get great exposure behind interesting articles and top notch music. but it also created lazy journalism and pigeonholed them as Beatle wanna bes regardless of what they said after 1996. Since that time I've heard Noel praise Bob Dylan, The Stooges and Neil Young just as much as The Beatles. The difference is nobody cared anymore. It was a very fun ride though. ![8-)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/cool.png)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2013 2:14:22 GMT -5
From my perspective of living in America and watching Oasis' rise to stardom in this country first hand, the Oasis/Beatles comparison initially helped them. The US music scene really bought into this "Oasis are the new Beatles" routine and it helped the band draw interest from a variety of media outlets. It also helped that the band had truly great songs during this period to back it all up (1994-1996). Generation X had this bizarro 60s thing going on when rock music became prominent again to the mainstream (Nirvana, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Pearl Jam, Smashing Pumpkins, etc). Oasis helped add to that music variety by offering a British flavor. They wrote great tunes, had a good looking frontman, they had beatles haircuts and talked "funny". Americans bought in, I know I sure did. ![8-)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/cool.png) However, it was not to last and the antics of the band soon over shadowed the music being reported toward the end of the 90s. It created a bad stigma in this country that Oasis was never really to shake off entirely, if ever. People saw them as Beatle copy cats when Be Here Now failed to repeat Morning Glory's success. Combine that with shifting trends in popular music and Oasis was dead in the water when SOTSOG came out in 2000. It was sad reading basically the same American album reviews of Oasis LPs. They always went two ways, comparing them to their past Beatle ambitions or "a return to form". I read that last line for every album since SOTSOG. An extremely cliched line. In America, the Oasis/Beatles comments were a double edged sword. It initially helped them get great exposure behind interesting articles and top notch music. but it also created lazy journalism and pigeonholed them as Beatle wanna bes regardless of what they said after 1996. Since that time I've heard Noel praise Bob Dylan, The Stooges and Neil Young just as much as The Beatles. The difference is nobody cared anymore. It was a very fun ride though. ![8-)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/cool.png) You know Lennon2217 and I really don't care if I get a knucklehead like the other night come on and take a shot for being overly nice to you ,calling me a lick ass or some crap. didn't take the bait then , and won't ever really those days over . But that just wasn't well said and spot on !!! But was and just about exactly not just what I felt but posted many times when this topic was brought up years ago .before you arrived here. In fact WEBBY may remember I tried starting a drive back in 05 to get oasis played more actually at all really on wdha and wnew and helped me by writing the stations after they both replied to me oasis didn't fit there genre of music!!! Yet. Coldplay. And other bands that came after them did ![???](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/huh.png) ? WEBBY even posted. " New ."reply here. Know he is busy and probably forgot this. But I always maintained it was a combination of what you just pointed out above about there remarks about the Beatles and all those cancelled gigs that radio stations sponsored ...as you know here in USA if you don't kiss ass in radio u get no play.. Woulda been great to have your voice there with me. Maybe one of them stations woulda listened back then cause they barely acknowledged them til lyla ![:-[](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/embarrassed.png) Spot on as usual Lennon .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2013 9:05:50 GMT -5
The truth be told, Oasis really had nothing to do with it really. Someone was going to make that comparison to the Beatles, they just didn't back down from it it like most artists out there. To their credit, if you play a sport don't you want to be the best ever? If not, why play? The same holds true in music. If you set out to be a "popular" band then why not set your sights on the top of the pile, and that will forever be linked to the Beatles. It's not a slight to any other bands, but they are the pinnacle and all bands post Beatles have been trying to find that same level of success with consistency.
If you are not trying to reach that level then quite wasting our time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2013 9:00:12 GMT -5
Oasis definitely played it up though which didn't do them any favours in the long run. Usually the moment the media cites someone as the "next whatever" they try begin to fight against it and distance themselves.. No one wants to be pigeon-holed. Oasis embraced the comparison with gusto...which gave all the journos license to beat them over the head with it. See that's spot on right there ! They did play up to it and more power to them ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png) but that opened them up to the media hordes here ...just like no matter how beautiful or sexy a woman can portray herself in Hollywood the minute she is compared to Monroe. Especially in the 60 s and 70 s and to a degree the 80 s the media looked for skeletons because Monroe was . "Perfect " Of course in reality we all knew better but that's how the media wanted it she died young and we never got to see her age so we only have the eternal Marylyn to compare today's Actresses ..same with the Beatles they left a good corpse still young still had more to contribute so how dare anyone to have the audacity to say we can be bigger It didn't work for Jayne Mansfield , Kim Novak , Farrah, or Suzanne somers , just as it didn't work for oasis once they had the audacity to make that claim to the media they were trying to displace the gods they worshipped , don't work in Hollywood , certainly don't work in music. ,,spot on gd
|
|
|
Post by Bruno on Mar 31, 2013 6:34:48 GMT -5
No one can even come close to the Beatles. I'm sorry but I find it funny when people say that oasis changed the way people walk, talk and dress. Its been only 5 years since their break up and people have hardly heard of them. If they have then their knowledge of Oasis is restricted to Wonderwall. So even if the band wanted to be the modern day Beatles they weren't very successful. And don't take me wrong I always defend oasis even if I know I'm wrong but here they were just building themselves up to a massive let down.
No one can come close to the cultural revolution that was The Beatles, not now not ever.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2013 17:33:11 GMT -5
No one can even come close to the Beatles. I'm sorry but I find it funny when people say that oasis changed the way people walk, talk and dress. . Bruno while I agree on all points no doubt ...... That part rings true , I was there then. And for instance knebwortth one out every three Londoners applied for tickets to the gigs 1 in 3 ! That's a phenomon they did influence the way people talked being northern was fashionable for a minute largely because of them , they were referenced and there music featured in hit britcoms. Ab Fab , east Enders , the one with the 2 brothers that acted like them forget the name ..the walk was more the Liam strut and tons did just that ..not blur or any band then can say for that time period so for that short 2 year spell they were not the Beatles nobody I know says they were mate , but they influenced more of the ENGLISH CULTURE. NOT WORLD. THEN ANY BAND I REMEMBER ID HAVE TO GO BACK TO PUNK TO THINK OF ONE AND EVEN THE PISTOLS COULD NOT GET ONE OUT OF THREE LONDONERS APPLYING FOR TICKETS TO A TWO NIGHT GIG JMO BUT THAT IS CHANGING THINGS IN A COUNTRY ALBEIT FOR A SHORT SPAN YA KNOW ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2013 17:42:05 GMT -5
Oh yea Bruno the caps was for me making sure i was not typed wrong not yelling I know some here are way to sensitive to caplock it was meant for me cause I can't see so good on iPad mate And to be clear you are right on all other points its been five years nobody cares. But in those two years I know you were younger as are my two FREINDS who liked your post but I was in the UK and 30 and it was mad and for those 2 odd years they were not and as you say nobody ever will be the Beatles But for that short time they most certainly had a influence on those 3 areas mate ...and there documentaries out there to show its, but I lived it in adulthood it was there
|
|
|
Post by warewolf95 on Mar 31, 2013 17:55:26 GMT -5
No one can even come close to the Beatles. I'm sorry but I find it funny when people say that oasis changed the way people walk, talk and dress. Its been only 5 years since their break up and people have hardly heard of them. If they have then their knowledge of Oasis is restricted to Wonderwall. So even if the band wanted to be the modern day Beatles they weren't very successful. And don't take me wrong I always defend oasis even if I know I'm wrong but here they were just building themselves up to a massive let down. No one can come close to the cultural revolution that was The Beatles, not now not ever. With the Beatles, it had everything to do with the cultural landscape of the 60s and the time period of their popularity. I mean, they changed so much and did so much at precisely the right times it seems like and no group could replicate that kind of thing today. The Beatles truly were one of those "perfect thing at the perfect moment" kind of phenomena.
|
|