|
|
Post by jaq515 on Apr 23, 2014 13:22:55 GMT -5
Number 2 was nearly unheard of for a uk band at that point and much better than MG peak of number 8. My point was that it wasn't the tour that wholly effected them as they did enter that highly. like i said and you are saying the album wasn't good enough / what the u.s wanted so didn't sell well / performed dissapointingly overall They got to #2 because of the success of Morning Glory and having the people who bought that continue to explore the band into Be Here Now. Oasis wasn't getting any singles on radio or TV by fall of 1997. They fell swiftly and the pubic sadly moved on. Yes think every one understands that as i said obviously be here now wasn't to the u.s taste thus stations didn't play their music and people didn't carry on buying the album |
|
|
|
BE sales
Apr 23, 2014 15:52:21 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by defmaybe00 on Apr 23, 2014 15:52:21 GMT -5
Noel you're fucking dick, fuck off, nobody cares about you anymore, you're a twat, twat, twa...oh wait, what? Are you saying this is an Oasis forum?  |
|
|
|
Post by Willie T. Soke on Apr 23, 2014 16:03:50 GMT -5
Be Here Now also wasn't helped by Ok Computer and Urban Hymns being released in 1997.
also, I heard 'Don't Go Away' on the radio a lot....to be fair, i listened to the radio a lot, mainly due to being young and smoking lots of marijuana while traveling less traveled roads.
another good example of Oasis' popularity in 95/96 in america: Oasis were played on pop stations, rock stations and alternative stations...that rarely happens.
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by shinealight on Apr 24, 2014 4:41:48 GMT -5
Damn right The general public are all fucking idiots who have fallen for Noel's bullshit. Because Liam swears/gets pissed etc and the way he acted in the 90's he gets labeled as the arrogant twat. People need to wake up and see its Noel who's the dick, but that won't happen. Liam still acts like he is in the 90s.  No he does not. And as he said in some document during Be here now... young geezer...clouds of money I strongly believe some of us here would be in the same league as he was in 90ties  having that money, attention etc. |
|
|
|
Post by shinealight on Apr 24, 2014 4:49:30 GMT -5
But they aren't the characters that Liam and noel were in the 90s. Oasis did whatever they wanted and if America didn't get them them or their antics so be it. They were so big here and were big all around the world it didn't matter if they 'cracked' America. Like I said before oasis were so massively culturally important in the u.k . They sealed their part of history. None of the bands mentioned above can dream of claiming that which is more important than selling records in the u.s Radiohead are more well regarded by music critics and music fans than Oasis ever will be. Not a popular opinion on this forum but it is the truth. They have had 4 classic albums, Oasis 2 and none since 1995. Oasis not sustaining any USA success is rather unfortunate. I bet it bothers Noel. someone wake me up please radiohead made music for sad ppl and oasis made "pub" music. I' m more than happy to take the second one. agree with jaq515 that none of the bands could not even dream of the heights oasis reached in 90ties... |
|
|
|
Post by vespa on Apr 24, 2014 6:23:32 GMT -5
radiohead have a cult following in the states but to say theyve had more success is a joke , yes theyve had a number one but that means nothing there records sales do not match oasis and are knowhere near that level and never will be , oasis broke america but not to the level they were expected to . They were still selling tours out over there and were gaining recognition back especially from dont believe the truth onwards . oasis problem in america was that they were deemed to unpredictable and volatile but this image was slowly going away towards the end mainly due to noels knew found status as a likeable celeb!also poor advertising and promotional budgets never helped them after be here now , record companies and the band themselves just werent putting enough cash into promoting.
as for beady eye the simple fact is they just release let it be and they wouldnt sell , liam sells in oasis and thats it, hes accepted as a bad boy of rock and vocalist in that band.
noel is the greatest songwriter of his generation
|
|
|
|
Post by underneaththesky on Apr 24, 2014 6:53:57 GMT -5
was watching Some Might Say from Earl's Court last night and how strong Liam's vocals AND Noel's songwriting were.
magic can't be right? well it was then and it is not now. simple as that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lennon2217 on Apr 24, 2014 8:37:43 GMT -5
radiohead have a cult following in the states but to say theyve had more success is a joke , yes theyve had a number one but that means nothing there records sales do not match oasis and are knowhere near that level and never will be , oasis broke america but not to the level they were expected to . They were still selling tours out over there and were gaining recognition back especially from dont believe the truth onwards . oasis problem in america was that they were deemed to unpredictable and volatile but this image was slowly going away towards the end mainly due to noels knew found status as a likeable celeb!also poor advertising and promotional budgets never helped them after be here now , record companies and the band themselves just werent putting enough cash into promoting. as for beady eye the simple fact is they just release let it be and they wouldnt sell , liam sells in oasis and thats it, hes accepted as a bad boy of rock and vocalist in that band. noel is the greatest songwriter of his generation Radiohead have had multiple #1 albums in America and have sold roughly the same as Oasis did (6.5 million). The difference is Oasis had a lot of those numbers in one release (Morning Glory). After that point it was a stark decline for them commercially. On the flip side, Radiohead constantly maintained sales of a million albums sold or 500K. They also had the fortune of better reviews and playing larger sold out venues consistently throughout the US. If I had to pick who had the better US career it would be Radiohead. 20 years later and they are still going strong stateside. Oasis sadly is the butt of many jokes to non Oasis fans. |
|
|
|
Post by Lennon2217 on Apr 24, 2014 8:40:09 GMT -5
Radiohead are more well regarded by music critics and music fans than Oasis ever will be. Not a popular opinion on this forum but it is the truth. They have had 4 classic albums, Oasis 2 and none since 1995. Oasis not sustaining any USA success is rather unfortunate. I bet it bothers Noel. someone wake me up please radiohead made music for sad ppl and oasis made "pub" music. I' m more than happy to take the second one. agree with jaq515 that none of the bands could not even dream of the heights oasis reached in 90ties... I'd think I'd prefer the Radiohead course in America. Oasis hasn't been relevant in America since about 1997. Radiohead still cause a stir when an album and tour are unleashed. I can't say that for Oasis. Sure they flew extremely high but it didn't last in America. It faded rather quickly. They are known more for fighting that the great music they created. That is the saddest part of their tale. |
|
|
|
Post by allingoodtime on Apr 24, 2014 9:21:43 GMT -5
Radiohead are a miserable band..when I listen to them I get into a bad mood lol
|
|
|
|
Post by Lennon2217 on Apr 24, 2014 9:58:12 GMT -5
Radiohead are a miserable band..when I listen to them I get into a bad mood lol I get in a bad mood when thinking about all the lackluster releases Oasis had after 1997. Hit or miss for the most part. Depressing considering they should have taken the next step. |
|
|
|
Post by jaq515 on Apr 24, 2014 10:05:08 GMT -5
radiohead have a cult following in the states but to say theyve had more success is a joke , yes theyve had a number one but that means nothing there records sales do not match oasis and are knowhere near that level and never will be , oasis broke america but not to the level they were expected to . They were still selling tours out over there and were gaining recognition back especially from dont believe the truth onwards . oasis problem in america was that they were deemed to unpredictable and volatile but this image was slowly going away towards the end mainly due to noels knew found status as a likeable celeb!also poor advertising and promotional budgets never helped them after be here now , record companies and the band themselves just werent putting enough cash into promoting. as for beady eye the simple fact is they just release let it be and they wouldnt sell , liam sells in oasis and thats it, hes accepted as a bad boy of rock and vocalist in that band. noel is the greatest songwriter of his generation Radiohead have had multiple #1 albums in America and have sold roughly the same as Oasis did (6.5 million). The difference is Oasis had a lot of those numbers in one release (Morning Glory). After that point it was a stark decline for them commercially. On the flip side, Radiohead constantly maintained sales of a million albums sold or 500K. They also had the fortune of better reviews and playing larger sold out venues consistently throughout the US. If I had to pick who had the better US career it would be Radiohead. 20 years later and they are still going strong stateside. Oasis sadly is the butt of many jokes to non Oasis fans. I keep referring back to this but oasis had such a great career else where that America doesn't matter to them. In the u.k they are face of a decades worth of culture and today still as likely to be in a music magazine or newspaper as in the 90s After BHN and the u.s decline they carried on and still did plenty of business in the rest of the world for another 12 years. This interview with noel from 2 years back and he said no one in oasis had any regrets about the u.s. www.ultimate-guitar.com/news/general_music_news/noel_gallagher_liam_stopped_our_us_success.htmlRadiohead and thom yorke are also the butt of many jokes so think it just comes with the territory. |
|
|
|
Post by Lennon2217 on Apr 24, 2014 10:11:21 GMT -5
Radiohead have had multiple #1 albums in America and have sold roughly the same as Oasis did (6.5 million). The difference is Oasis had a lot of those numbers in one release (Morning Glory). After that point it was a stark decline for them commercially. On the flip side, Radiohead constantly maintained sales of a million albums sold or 500K. They also had the fortune of better reviews and playing larger sold out venues consistently throughout the US. If I had to pick who had the better US career it would be Radiohead. 20 years later and they are still going strong stateside. Oasis sadly is the butt of many jokes to non Oasis fans. I keep referring back to this but oasis had such a great career else where that America doesn't matter to them. In the u.k they are face of a decades worth of culture and today still as likely to be in a music magazine or newspaper as in the 90s After BHN and the u.s decline they carried on and still did plenty of business in the rest of the world for another 12 years. This interview with noel from 2 years back and he said no one in oasis had any regrets about the u.s. www.ultimate-guitar.com/news/general_music_news/noel_gallagher_liam_stopped_our_us_success.htmlRadiohead and thom yorke are also the butt of many jokes so think it just comes with the territory. My points are only in relation to people saying Radiohead didn't have success in America like Oasis. They had plenty and probably more when you take it all into account. Well I know Noel said he did have some regrets with America. When doing his press for HFB he cited the failed fall US tour in 1996 and never getting a #1. |
|
|
|
Post by allingoodtime on Apr 24, 2014 10:15:26 GMT -5
Radiohead are a miserable band..when I listen to them I get into a bad mood lol I get in a bad mood when thinking about all the lackluster releases Oasis had after 1997. Hit or miss for the most part. Depressing considering they should have taken the next step. Definitely considering the quality of the first 2..to me even 1997 was disappointing. Their best album after MG was The Masterplan, everything after that could have been a lot better. Such a shame when you look at the talent they had :/ |
|
|
|
Post by Lennon2217 on Apr 24, 2014 10:18:07 GMT -5
I get in a bad mood when thinking about all the lackluster releases Oasis had after 1997. Hit or miss for the most part. Depressing considering they should have taken the next step. Definitely considering the quality of the first 2..to me even 1997 was disappointing. Their best album after MG was The Masterplan, everything after that could have been a lot better. Such a shame when you look at the talent they had :/ You would think that after adding Gem and Andy, the band would take a big jump sonically. Lot of creative minds in the band at that point in 2002. For me they played it way too safe after SOTSOG. Sure some big singles but we all know the albums weren't up to the task. With the resurgence of rock in 2002-2004 (Strokes, White Stripes, Interpol, Arcade Fire, Coldplay), I thought Oasis would join the pack and rise up tall again. Did. Not. Happen. |
|
|
|
Post by allingoodtime on Apr 24, 2014 11:06:39 GMT -5
Definitely considering the quality of the first 2..to me even 1997 was disappointing. Their best album after MG was The Masterplan, everything after that could have been a lot better. Such a shame when you look at the talent they had :/ You would think that after adding Gem and Andy, the band would take a big jump sonically. Lot of creative minds in the band at that point in 2002. For me they played it way too safe after SOTSOG. Sure some big singles but we all know the albums weren't up to the task. With the resurgence of rock in 2002-2004 (Strokes, White Stripes, Interpol, Arcade Fire, Coldplay), I thought Oasis would join the pack and rise up tall again. Did. Not. Happen. True about Andy and Gem, but then again their best albums were when Noel would write all the songs. I think they played it a bit safe after Be He Now flopped (not sales wise..) which is a shame I guess. Fact is Oasis still released materpieces even when they were off form, just sucks that some of the albums felt a bit rushed in the sense that the album fillers were literally thrown in just to fill up an album! |
|
|
|
Post by Lennon2217 on Apr 24, 2014 11:36:56 GMT -5
You would think that after adding Gem and Andy, the band would take a big jump sonically. Lot of creative minds in the band at that point in 2002. For me they played it way too safe after SOTSOG. Sure some big singles but we all know the albums weren't up to the task. With the resurgence of rock in 2002-2004 (Strokes, White Stripes, Interpol, Arcade Fire, Coldplay), I thought Oasis would join the pack and rise up tall again. Did. Not. Happen. True about Andy and Gem, but then again their best albums were when Noel would write all the songs. I think they played it a bit safe after Be He Now flopped (not sales wise..) which is a shame I guess. Fact is Oasis still released materpieces even when they were off form, just sucks that some of the albums felt a bit rushed in the sense that the album fillers were literally thrown in just to fill up an album! Considering the massive breaks between albums, Oasis shouldn't have had shitty filler songs. So many quality tunes left on the bench or disregarded all together. |
|
|
|
Post by jaq515 on Apr 24, 2014 12:09:41 GMT -5
I keep referring back to this but oasis had such a great career else where that America doesn't matter to them. In the u.k they are face of a decades worth of culture and today still as likely to be in a music magazine or newspaper as in the 90s After BHN and the u.s decline they carried on and still did plenty of business in the rest of the world for another 12 years. This interview with noel from 2 years back and he said no one in oasis had any regrets about the u.s. www.ultimate-guitar.com/news/general_music_news/noel_gallagher_liam_stopped_our_us_success.htmlRadiohead and thom yorke are also the butt of many jokes so think it just comes with the territory. My points are only in relation to people saying Radiohead didn't have success in America like Oasis. They had plenty and probably more when you take it all into account. Well I know Noel said he did have some regrets with America. When doing his press for HFB he cited the failed fall US tour in 1996 and never getting a #1. Yes I know you said that previously, but in this interview during HFB tour he said he had no regrets about the u.s. So guessing either could be the case (if you can link the interview be cool as heard him say about the tour but must've missed the #1 in u.s interview). Tho as we know noel lies so just cos noel says it, it doesn't mean it's so. I think the cult following comment is fair. For an act to have 4 classic albums (is that what you said), such a great career over a 20 period and such high critical acclaim etc etc their record sales aren't that great around the world or in the u.s. (And in uk in rainbows didn't massively outsell DGSS and king of limbs same thing with BE (as last 2 albums the bands released) They did have a peak with ok computer in the U.S (like oasis did with MG) and since then their sales have heavily declined also. (For a band the u.s like) |
|
|
|
Post by Lennon2217 on Apr 24, 2014 12:24:47 GMT -5
My points are only in relation to people saying Radiohead didn't have success in America like Oasis. They had plenty and probably more when you take it all into account. Well I know Noel said he did have some regrets with America. When doing his press for HFB he cited the failed fall US tour in 1996 and never getting a #1. Yes I know you said that previously, but in this interview during HFB tour he said he had no regrets about the u.s. So guessing either could be the case (if you can link the interview be cool as heard him say about the tour but must've missed the #1 in u.s interview). Tho as we know noel lies so just cos noel says it, it doesn't mean it's so. I think the cult following comment is fair. For an act to have 4 classic albums (is that what you said), such a great career over a 20 period and such high critical acclaim etc etc their record sales aren't that great around the world or in the u.s. (And in uk in rainbows didn't massively outsell DGSS and king of limbs same thing with BE (as last 2 albums the bands released) They did have a peak with ok computer in the U.S (like oasis did with MG) and since then their sales have heavily declined also. (For a band the u.s like) Well its not all about record sales you know. Don't forget Radiohead released In Rainbows basically for free via their website about 4-5 months before it was officially released in the shops and still did the business compared to DOYS. Radiohead have far better reviews, both live and on albums. Their legacy holds up stronger than Oasis in my opinion globally. They sustained their success in America, Oasis didn't. If Radiohead have a cult following in the USA, then what is Oasis? It has to be lower than whatever you label Radiohead. I'm not certain there is any one interview to find Noel's quote on wanting a #1 album in America. He might have said it on the DOYS and the HFB tour. I've heard it a couple of times. |
|
|
|
Post by jaq515 on Apr 24, 2014 12:59:30 GMT -5
Yes I know you said that previously, but in this interview during HFB tour he said he had no regrets about the u.s. So guessing either could be the case (if you can link the interview be cool as heard him say about the tour but must've missed the #1 in u.s interview). Tho as we know noel lies so just cos noel says it, it doesn't mean it's so. I think the cult following comment is fair. For an act to have 4 classic albums (is that what you said), such a great career over a 20 period and such high critical acclaim etc etc their record sales aren't that great around the world or in the u.s. (And in uk in rainbows didn't massively outsell DGSS and king of limbs same thing with BE (as last 2 albums the bands released) They did have a peak with ok computer in the U.S (like oasis did with MG) and since then their sales have heavily declined also. (For a band the u.s like) Well its not all about record sales you know. Don't forget Radiohead released In Rainbows basically for free via their website about 4-5 months before it was officially released in the shops and still did the business compared to DOYS. Radiohead have far better reviews, both live and on albums. Their legacy holds up stronger than Oasis in my opinion globally. They sustained their success in America, Oasis didn't. If Radiohead have a cult following in the USA, then what is Oasis? It has to be lower than whatever you label Radiohead. I'm not certain there is any one interview to find Noel's quote on wanting a #1 album in America. He might have said it on the DOYS and the HFB tour. I've heard it a couple of times. In rainbows maybe did in America but not really elsewhere in the world. Why are you so focused on u.s success Oasis have sold nearly double the amount of records then radiohead globally without u.s success. Don't forget this is a thread about records sales thus why put about radioheads last 2 albums in the the uk aren't massively better then BDI record sales in the uk (which is the sales being spoken about in the thread) In the u.s radiohead's legacy is better? Or I believe you it is. They obviously aren't a mainstream act as their sales are so poor vs mainstream acts (ie oasis during MG) / what acts sell now. (Oasis don't exist is u.s any more and haven't since '97 / butt of jokes.. you say this a lot so why ask what they are?) Previously as been covered in this thread several times pretty big 95, one of the biggest bands in u.s in 96 then 'everyone thinking they broke up' in late '97 I don't think anyone really cares what critics say do they? When I talk about oasis I wouldn't dream of saying well the critics say it classic album, they said oasis were great live? My opinion of oasis never ever been based on what a critic said. Up to the split oasis where touring very very healthily around the world in at least major markets like Europe, japan, South America. I believe oasis has a better legacy world wide (maybe not with critics) Tho alot of news / entertainment sites all over the world picked up the story and reported favourably about the DM remasters Back to it's not all about record sales is what I said originally, cos oasis were oasis they didn't crack America (which my link to noel saying he doesn't regret u.s said was cos Liam wasn't Chris Martin) and via them doing it their way they sealed themselves deep into UK culture, even BHN not being great still resonated here for them. (so it was worth it). Radiohead will never be intwined in a culture like oasis are here. |
|
|
|
Post by Lennon2217 on Apr 24, 2014 13:07:36 GMT -5
Well its not all about record sales you know. Don't forget Radiohead released In Rainbows basically for free via their website about 4-5 months before it was officially released in the shops and still did the business compared to DOYS. Radiohead have far better reviews, both live and on albums. Their legacy holds up stronger than Oasis in my opinion globally. They sustained their success in America, Oasis didn't. If Radiohead have a cult following in the USA, then what is Oasis? It has to be lower than whatever you label Radiohead. I'm not certain there is any one interview to find Noel's quote on wanting a #1 album in America. He might have said it on the DOYS and the HFB tour. I've heard it a couple of times. In rainbows maybe did in America but not really elsewhere in the world. Why are you so focused on u.s success Oasis have sold nearly double the amount of records then radiohead globally without u.s success. Don't forget this is a thread about records sales thus why put about radioheads last 2 albums in the the uk aren't massively better then BDI record sales in the uk (which is the sales being spoken about in the thread) In the u.s radiohead's legacy is better? Or I believe you it is. They obviously aren't a mainstream act as their sales are so poor vs mainstream acts (ie oasis during MG) / what acts sell now. (Oasis don't exist is u.s any more and haven't since '97 / butt of jokes.. you say this a lot so why ask what they are?) Previously as been covered in this thread several times pretty big 95, one of the biggest bands in u.s in 96 then 'everyone thinking they broke up' in late '97 I don't think anyone really cares what critics say do they? When I talk about oasis I wouldn't dream of saying well the critics say it classic album, they said oasis were great live? My opinion of oasis never ever been based on what a critic said. Up to the split oasis where touring very very healthily around the world in at least major markets like Europe, japan, South America. I believe oasis has a better legacy world wide (maybe not with critics) Tho alot of news / entertainment sites all over the world picked up the story and reported favourably about the DM remasters Back to it's not all about record sales is what I said originally, cos oasis were oasis they didn't crack America (which my link to noel saying he doesn't regret u.s said was cos Liam wasn't Chris Martin) and via them doing it their way they sealed themselves deep into UK culture, even BHN not being great still resonated here for them. (so it was worth it). Radiohead will never be intwined in a culture like oasis are here. As I KEEP saying, I only mention Radiohead's success in America because earlier in the thread members were saying Radiohead were just a cult band in America and couldn't match Oasis there. That is 100% false as I pointed out earlier. Sold just as many records, played bigger venues, had those elusive #1's Oasis never achieved and maintained critical respect. That was my original point. I know Oasis pisses on Radiohead commercially globally but not in the United States of America. That is all that I'm saying. |
|
|
|
Post by jaq515 on Apr 24, 2014 13:26:02 GMT -5
In rainbows maybe did in America but not really elsewhere in the world. Why are you so focused on u.s success Oasis have sold nearly double the amount of records then radiohead globally without u.s success. Don't forget this is a thread about records sales thus why put about radioheads last 2 albums in the the uk aren't massively better then BDI record sales in the uk (which is the sales being spoken about in the thread) In the u.s radiohead's legacy is better? Or I believe you it is. They obviously aren't a mainstream act as their sales are so poor vs mainstream acts (ie oasis during MG) / what acts sell now. (Oasis don't exist is u.s any more and haven't since '97 / butt of jokes.. you say this a lot so why ask what they are?) Previously as been covered in this thread several times pretty big 95, one of the biggest bands in u.s in 96 then 'everyone thinking they broke up' in late '97 I don't think anyone really cares what critics say do they? When I talk about oasis I wouldn't dream of saying well the critics say it classic album, they said oasis were great live? My opinion of oasis never ever been based on what a critic said. Up to the split oasis where touring very very healthily around the world in at least major markets like Europe, japan, South America. I believe oasis has a better legacy world wide (maybe not with critics) Tho alot of news / entertainment sites all over the world picked up the story and reported favourably about the DM remasters Back to it's not all about record sales is what I said originally, cos oasis were oasis they didn't crack America (which my link to noel saying he doesn't regret u.s said was cos Liam wasn't Chris Martin) and via them doing it their way they sealed themselves deep into UK culture, even BHN not being great still resonated here for them. (so it was worth it). Radiohead will never be intwined in a culture like oasis are here. As I KEEP saying, I only mention Radiohead's success in America because earlier in the thread members were saying Radiohead were just a cult band in America and couldn't match Oasis there. That is 100% false as I pointed out earlier. Sold just as many records, played bigger venues, had those elusive #1's Oasis never achieved and maintained critical respect. That was my original point. I know Oasis pisses on Radiohead commercially globally but not in the United States of America. That is all that I'm saying. Ohhh sorry no need to SHOUT. Ok cool as long as I understand was just so we know oasis sold same amount of records as radiohead in the u.s but radiohead are more critically acclaimed in the u.s. I get it now 8-D |
|
Nov 4, 2024 5:04:30 GMT -5
Nov 4, 2024 5:04:30 GMT -5