|
|
Post by coconutstall on Feb 18, 2018 6:15:46 GMT -5
In Australia Nirvana are much more popular than Oasis. General public would only really know Wonderwall and DLBIA and with a few more people knowing Morning Glory, Champagne Supernova and Roll With It. Do people really know more than say, Smells Like Teen Spirit and Come As You Are, with a few more knowing Lithium and Heart-Shaped Box? Maybe I'm wrong and Nirvana are just unusually popular in Australia, but my sense is that the two bands are basically equivalent. Most people wouldn't know more than that no, but literally everyone knows 'Nirvana' while most wouldn't know 'Oasis'. And most that do wouldn't know they had a song outside of Wonderwall. Nirvana are certainly bigger here. |
|
|
|
Post by sirpsychosexy on Feb 18, 2018 9:53:47 GMT -5
Was wondering who's bigger now. Nirvana on youtube in the last 3 and a half years - 3 billion, 5 million spotify followers, 27 million likes on facebook Oasis - 1.4 B, 2 million followers, 9 million likes So I guess Nirvana definitely wins that one  Don't know about the 90s, was just starting school when BHN was new |
|
|
|
Post by SheSaidHerNameWasDot on Feb 18, 2018 10:01:51 GMT -5
Nirvana were/are rubbish.
|
|
|
|
Post by tatomoon on Feb 18, 2018 10:43:04 GMT -5
Was wondering who's bigger now. Nirvana on youtube in the last 3 and a half years - 3 billion, 5 million spotify followers, 27 million likes on facebook Oasis - 1.4 B, 2 million followers, 9 million likes So I guess Nirvana definitely wins that one Don't know about the 90s, was just starting school when BHN was new True - but both have 10m monthly listeners on Spotify, and both sold around 80 million records, for example. Strange how they're about the same by some measures and worlds apart by others |
|
|
|
Post by Lennon2217 on Feb 18, 2018 11:46:25 GMT -5
Was wondering who's bigger now. Nirvana on youtube in the last 3 and a half years - 3 billion, 5 million spotify followers, 27 million likes on facebook Oasis - 1.4 B, 2 million followers, 9 million likes So I guess Nirvana definitely wins that one Don't know about the 90s, was just starting school when BHN was new True - but both have 10m monthly listeners on Spotify, and both sold around 80 million records, for example. Strange how they're about the same by some measures and worlds apart by others People can find and use stats/numbers to support any argument they want to make. Even with robust sales figures, Nirvana transcended the music scene in 1991. Bands like that didn't sell millions of albums or appear on MTV or have kids dress up like them at school. Yet that is exactly what happened between 1991 and 1994. They basically ended one music genres prominence (metal) and ushered in another (alt rock). I heard Tom Petty once say that Kurt Cobain was the sickle through a field of weak music at the time. I liked that analogy. Kurt's been gone for well over 20 years but his impact and music is still felt strongly across the globe. Inspired many, including Noel Gallagher. |
|
|
|
Post by Nyron Nosworthy on Feb 18, 2018 13:22:47 GMT -5
Find it absolutely ridiculous that people compare the number of likes a video has on Youtube as a measure of how big a band is or was. Especially 25 years after one band ended.
|
|
|
|
Post by bt95 on Feb 19, 2018 6:44:48 GMT -5
Nirvana was absolutely crushing it from 1991-1994. Oasis dominated from 1994 to 1998. The difference when it comes down to it is Oasis had a lackluster second chapter. Nirvana was never seen to have lost it because Cobain left us way too soon so their musical legacy remains intact with no duds or average albums. Even today in America, young teenagers LOVE Nirvana and they weren't even born when the band were active. I guess it would be the same with Oasis over in the UK.Both were massive in their own time. This precisely. Which is a large part of why Liam's comeback has been so massive over here. Oasis are the biggest British band in Britain among the 'youth' at the moment, and they've been gone nine years Arctic Monkeys will be all over the radio/internet once their new single and album comes out later this year, but Oasis are bigger now than they have been in a long time in the UK. Agree with everything you say on Nirvana, though. As sad as it is, they never got the chance to burn out. Oasis didn't really burn out, but they never quite hit the likes of U2, Coldplay etc (in terms of the world-wide appeal to sell out stadiums in any country) following their 95-97 peak. |
|
|
|
Post by Lennon2217 on Feb 19, 2018 6:49:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by coconutstall on Feb 19, 2018 8:10:10 GMT -5
Nirvana was absolutely crushing it from 1991-1994. Oasis dominated from 1994 to 1998. The difference when it comes down to it is Oasis had a lackluster second chapter. Nirvana was never seen to have lost it because Cobain left us way too soon so their musical legacy remains intact with no duds or average albums. Even today in America, young teenagers LOVE Nirvana and they weren't even born when the band were active. I guess it would be the same with Oasis over in the UK.Both were massive in their own time. This precisely. Which is a large part of why Liam's comeback has been so massive over here. Oasis are the biggest British band in Britain among the 'youth' at the moment, and they've been gone nine years
Arctic Monkeys will be all over the radio/internet once their new single and album comes out later this year, but Oasis are bigger now than they have been in a long time in the UK.Agree with everything you say on Nirvana, though. As sad as it is, they never got the chance to burn out. Oasis didn't really burn out, but they never quite hit the likes of U2, Coldplay etc (in terms of the world-wide appeal to sell out stadiums in any country) following their 95-97 peak. I find this interesting, are Oasis really bigger with youth now than Arctic Monkeys? I would say in Australia Arctic Monkeys are far more well known than Oasis are amongst 14-20 year olds. Arctic Monkeys timed their hiatus really well, if their new album is as good as their last one was we will get to see just how far a rock band can go in the modern day because that last one was fucking brilliant. |
|
|
|
Post by bt95 on Feb 19, 2018 9:06:20 GMT -5
This precisely. Which is a large part of why Liam's comeback has been so massive over here. Oasis are the biggest British band in Britain among the 'youth' at the moment, and they've been gone nine years
Arctic Monkeys will be all over the radio/internet once their new single and album comes out later this year, but Oasis are bigger now than they have been in a long time in the UK.Agree with everything you say on Nirvana, though. As sad as it is, they never got the chance to burn out. Oasis didn't really burn out, but they never quite hit the likes of U2, Coldplay etc (in terms of the world-wide appeal to sell out stadiums in any country) following their 95-97 peak. I find this interesting, are Oasis really bigger with youth now than Arctic Monkeys? I would say in Australia Arctic Monkeys are far more well known than Oasis are amongst 14-20 year olds. Arctic Monkeys timed their hiatus really well, if their new album is as good as their last one was we will get to see just how far a rock band can go in the modern day because that last one was fucking brilliant. In the UK, definitely. In the same way that people who were that age in the 90s would say the Beatles were popular. Oasis are definitely a huge band now for people aged 14-22/23 in the UK. Because that generation - my generation - haven't had a band come through yet that have really hit the heights. Arctic Monkeys - they won't ever be as big as Oasis - but they are kind of from the era just before that age group. Arctic Monkeys have done what Oasis should have done after Morning Glory. The thing that made them such a phenomenon to begin with was that they came from a similar background to Oasis and along with Kasabian are the two 'big bands' of that UK indie scene from 2004-2007. They have of course changed their style a lot and yeh if this album matches the last one then we'll see just what they can do. They'll sell arenas out UK arenas in minutes and given it's more than likely going to be an autumn release, I'd expect a big European tour pre-Christmas, USA and Australia next year and then perhaps stadiums or a stadium gig next summer back home. I actually expect this album will be one of the most 'hyped' by a British 'rock' band since Be Here Now. |
|
|
|
Post by bt95 on Feb 19, 2018 9:11:26 GMT -5
coconutstall and the thing with Arctic Monkeys is - as much as I think they're great - I don't think random Netflix tv shows set in small-town Oregon will be using their hit singles as sound tracks 23 years after their release, or that people will - in 30 years time - remember them for anything more than a very good band. That's not a slate against them, it's just how it is. Oasis are the last of that group of bands that came through and blitzed all before them. They delivered where others failed. Now Arctic Monkeys may well release a brilliant sixth album, but Oasis did it in their first two, and followed that up by playing their first stadium gigs and then to 250,000 people in the space of three months. That was hardly a year after headlining Glastonbury, which wasn't even a year after their debut album. All the while having a number four album in America and being one cancelled tour too many to conquer the rest of the world (Australia included). So it's hard to compare, because the circumstances are so different.
|
|
|
|
Post by coconutstall on Feb 19, 2018 9:48:43 GMT -5
coconutstall and the thing with Arctic Monkeys is - as much as I think they're great - I don't think random Netflix tv shows set in small-town Oregon will be using their hit singles as sound tracks 23 years after their release, or that people will - in 30 years time - remember them for anything more than a very good band. That's not a slate against them, it's just how it is. Oasis are the last of that group of bands that came through and blitzed all before them. They delivered where others failed. Now Arctic Monkeys may well release a brilliant sixth album, but Oasis did it in their first two, and followed that up by playing their first stadium gigs and then to 250,000 people in the space of three months. That was hardly a year after headlining Glastonbury, which wasn't even a year after their debut album. All the while having a number four album in America and being one cancelled tour too many to conquer the rest of the world (Australia included). So it's hard to compare, because the circumstances are so different. Oh I agree, Arctic Monkeys are nowhere near the level of fame that Oasis were in their day, not even in the same stratosphere. But I was expecting them to be huge in the UK still, I guess rock music in general has gone down hill in popularity. Today's youth seem to be more interested in rnb and grime, I guess fads just come and go. |
|
|
|
Post by bt95 on Feb 19, 2018 9:53:49 GMT -5
coconutstall and the thing with Arctic Monkeys is - as much as I think they're great - I don't think random Netflix tv shows set in small-town Oregon will be using their hit singles as sound tracks 23 years after their release, or that people will - in 30 years time - remember them for anything more than a very good band. That's not a slate against them, it's just how it is. Oasis are the last of that group of bands that came through and blitzed all before them. They delivered where others failed. Now Arctic Monkeys may well release a brilliant sixth album, but Oasis did it in their first two, and followed that up by playing their first stadium gigs and then to 250,000 people in the space of three months. That was hardly a year after headlining Glastonbury, which wasn't even a year after their debut album. All the while having a number four album in America and being one cancelled tour too many to conquer the rest of the world (Australia included). So it's hard to compare, because the circumstances are so different. Oh I agree, Arctic Monkeys are nowhere near the level of fame that Oasis were in their day, not even in the same stratosphere. But I was expecting them to be huge in the UK still, I guess rock music in general has gone down hill in popularity. Today's youth seem to be more interested in rnb and grime, I guess fads just come and go. The Arctic Monkeys are big mate and will be massive news when they come back. But they're not going to pull up any trees now. They'll plod along like Kasabian more than likely. They're album is guaranteed to go to number one and they may well get a single in the top 10 - especially if the songs are as west-coast as their last album, but meh, I find it hard to get truly excited. |
|
|
|
Post by Nyron Nosworthy on Feb 19, 2018 16:32:53 GMT -5
Think you have to remember that the 'youth of today' are probably the first generation who missed Oasis completely first time around. A 15 year old now would have obviously been 5/6 when DOYS came out and 6/7 when they split up.
I was about the same age when I discovered the Stone Roses (I'm 29 now). I absolutely adored Ian Brown for years because he was the closest thing to them, just as Liam coming out to Fuckin in the Bushes and playing Some Might Say and Rock 'n' Roll Star is the closest thing to Oasis.
The Arctic Monkeys are a big band but they'll never be as big as Oasis.
|
|
|
|
Post by bt95 on Feb 19, 2018 17:33:30 GMT -5
Think you have to remember that the 'youth of today' are probably the first generation who missed Oasis completely first time around. A 15 year old now would have obviously been 5/6 when DOYS came out and 6/7 when they split up. I was about the same age when I discovered the Stone Roses (I'm 29 now). I absolutely adored Ian Brown for years because he was the closest thing to them, just as Liam coming out to Fuckin in the Bushes and playing Some Might Say and Rock 'n' Roll Star is the closest thing to Oasis. The Arctic Monkeys are a big band but they'll never be as big as Oasis. This, basically. It may be different if my generation (I'm 22, so as a northerner into music and football did grow up with Oasis very prominently in the background) had a massive band that everybody from my age to about 15 could identify with as their own, but we don't. The Arctics, Kasabian - they're just the era before that (the one that a lot of 25-30 year olds now were able to identify as their own when they first came through). Another thing is how timeless the music is. Nirvana's music still sounds fresh. So does Oasis'. And, in fairness, those first two Arctic Monkeys albums. But they won't ever be as big as Oasis were/are here. Liam selling out 40,000 and 50,000 at Finsbury and Old Trafford just goes to show that. Yeh, Arctic Monkeys will smash it with their new album, whether it's good or not. But they won't come close to having the impact on youth culture that Oasis did and still have, here in the UK. |
|
|
|
Post by Let It Bleed on Feb 19, 2018 17:43:02 GMT -5
Nirvãna is the most influential band of the last 30 years or so, and they're dismissed as rubbish by little kids.....what a time to be alive.
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by vespa on Feb 19, 2018 19:22:46 GMT -5
Oasis are hitting another peak in the U.K. that’s for sure ,
|
|
|
|
Post by bt95 on Feb 20, 2018 3:34:44 GMT -5
True - but both have 10m monthly listeners on Spotify, and both sold around 80 million records, for example. Strange how they're about the same by some measures and worlds apart by others People can find and use stats/numbers to support any argument they want to make. Even with robust sales figures, Nirvana transcended the music scene in 1991. Bands like that didn't sell millions of albums or appear on MTV or have kids dress up like them at school. Yet that is exactly what happened between 1991 and 1994. They basically ended one music genres prominence (metal) and ushered in another (alt rock). I heard Tom Petty once say that Kurt Cobain was the sickle through a field of weak music at the time. I liked that analogy. Kurt's been gone for well over 20 years but his impact and music is still felt strongly across the globe. Inspired many, including Noel Gallagher. Yep, and as you've said this is exactly what Oasis did in the 95-97 era as well, especially in the UK. |
|
|
|
Post by bt95 on Feb 20, 2018 3:38:05 GMT -5
Oasis are hitting another peak in the U.K. that’s for sure , Yeh, it's a cyclical nature innit. Like, Noel has always said it was the 2005 DBTT tour that he first saw a 'new generation' of Oasis fans coming through (i.e. the ones who were only 5-10 back in 1994/95). And, in 2015 on the CY tour, he said he noticed the same thing (i.e. the ones who were only 5-10 (like myself) back in 2005). Now, with the release of Supersonic and Liam coming back with a strong album, plus Noel doing his own thing, plus the re-branding of XFM as Radio X (pretty much radio Gallagher at times) then from a popularity and musical perspective, Oasis are more popular now than when they broke up, and certainly in the following 2-3 years. As Liam said, that was part of why Beady Eye never clicked. People had had enough. |
|
|
|
Post by Let It Bleed on Feb 20, 2018 19:33:58 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2018 0:29:47 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure Nirvana are more well known worldwide.
From my facebook friends 9 have liked Oasis and 19 Nirvana. But my country's music taste sucks so dunno...
And 2 of those Oasis likers are from UK, one French (or Belgium, can't remember) and two others are music/Oasis related people. One is my friend who I introduced to Oasis.
Minus the same people from Nirvana page and that's 3 vs. 18 for Nirvana...
|
|
|
|
Post by liamism on Mar 3, 2018 5:31:35 GMT -5
There are 325 000 000 people in the US where Nirvana was a household name.
In contrast, there are 65 000 000 people in the UK where Oasis was a household name.
Britpop was largely popular in the UK vice versa to the US.
|
|
Nov 4, 2024 5:04:30 GMT -5