|
Post by stevecollins on Jan 26, 2006 10:30:12 GMT -5
Ok so we know the artic monkeys album has already sold faster in its first week than DM but will it outsell it in the long run? i belive its already sold around 350,000 copies, but the rate of sales may slow down whereas oasis kept a steady decent selling rate and i belive sold around 7 million copies in its first year of release.
discuss
|
|
|
Post by DixonHill on Jan 26, 2006 11:11:04 GMT -5
no.
i don't think the arctic monkeys are important enough. it's not like it was in 1994.
|
|
anne
Oasis Roadie
i'll be fine
Posts: 167
|
Post by anne on Jan 26, 2006 13:12:47 GMT -5
i dont think they'll be as huge as oasis were all this fuss about t'monkeys was picked by the media and here we are wish them luck... but i don't think they'll release a better album than this one and carry on with really good ones for a few years... just can't see it happening but who knows?
|
|
|
Post by wassis on Feb 1, 2006 1:58:06 GMT -5
The only thing I've ever heard about the Arctic Monkeys is Noel talking to Jo Whiley saying they'll never make it big or win any awards because their name is ridiculous. I've never heard anything by them at all, but if they've sold more than DM in the first week, does this mean they've broken the fastest-selling debut album in British history record? I fucking hope not. That would really piss me off.
Having said I haven't heard anything by them, this next comment may seem to have no weight - or maybe it reinforces my opinion: I don't think it will outsell DM - DM is a landmark UK album which continues to sell today (even though Noel whinges that all their other albums have sold more when DM is their best - according to him). It's because Oasis later followed up with MG and massive gigs, and that they have lasting relevance, that their albums keep selling - will the Arctic Monkeys have this impact? No-one else has since Oasis.
|
|
|
Post by Billy Davey ツ on Feb 2, 2006 5:17:27 GMT -5
let's admit it: the media is always looking for new heroes. Oasis were the kings of the 90's, but they are too old to have the media support (except MNE and few more), cos in this industry the new is what sells more. The fact is that they're great enough to resist that, but we dont know how long they will. In any case, what differences them from other bands is that they made the 2 best discs of the decade (I'm sure they'd still sell out gigs even if they hadn't more records), and its's really hard to improve that. DM and WTSMG will be selling for years, like Abbey road or Sgt Pepper do. Someone posted some time ago that the media put Led Zeppelin at the top of the world, but when they realized they couldnt take the band out of that place (they were too big) to introduce new groups, Zeppelin became the enemy. Only some time after their break the media recognised how good the were. Maybe it's the same. Why is a band much better when a member dies? (not only Nirvana, it has happened thousands of times)
|
|
|
Post by Billy Davey ツ on Feb 2, 2006 5:18:42 GMT -5
maybe that was the longest post I've ever made ;D;D;D;D
|
|