Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2015 6:45:37 GMT -5
How many rock bands have actually been relevant worldwide since 1997? You could argue Coldplay and The Rolling Stones (who'll still be relevant when Keith Richards celebrates his 200th birthday). In today's musical climate, it's unlikely that rock bands can garner global attention and success.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lennon2217 on Apr 1, 2015 6:50:19 GMT -5
How many rock bands have actually been relevant worldwide since 1997? You could argue Coldplay and The Rolling Stones (who'll still be relevant when Keith Richards celebrates his 200th birthday). In today's musical climate, it's unlikely that rock bands can garner global attention and success. |
|
|
|
Post by The Invisible Sun on Apr 1, 2015 8:46:12 GMT -5
How many rock bands have actually been relevant worldwide since 1997? You could argue Coldplay and The Rolling Stones (who'll still be relevant when Keith Richards celebrates his 200th birthday). In today's musical climate, it's unlikely that rock bands can garner global attention and success. I call them RadioDead. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2015 8:54:48 GMT -5
Oasis weren't relevant after 1997. I do sometimes forget this is a fan forum...outside the fan base, Oasis weren't relevant to the world. They just weren't. Making music that transcends the fan base. I dare say, making amazing music, I mean, songs that are timeless...really influencing other music and bands, etc. God bless. that it was not just in usa they stopped being relevant , there album sales and crowds size in other countries dipped as well , maybe not as large as usa . but bthey dipped and were not as relevant post 97 simple as remember looking at sales wordwide and saying thats not what I EXPECTED , SORRY THEY DEFINATLY lost relevance outside of the dforum based fans , sadly , doesent mean they fell off the earth , but they lost alot of there steam |
|
|
|
Post by lamboasis on Apr 1, 2015 10:15:15 GMT -5
Radiohead have been relevant? Here in europe is WAY WAY WAY easier to find an Oasis fan than Radiohead's. How can you say they weren't relevant... I still have to understand that. Maybe you in the US live in a different world, but here in Europe they were HUGE in the 2000s as well and even people who were not diehard fans enjoyed the singles a lot. And really, who cares if they weren't relevant in the States. Not even Noel and Liam could care, except for the money. If a single country can't get Oasis that doesn't mean they're not relevant, it's a problem of the americans, it'll probably be the first country Noel will stop touring when he'll get old for different reasons. Anyway Noel is #15 in the midweek chart. www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/chart/updatealbums |
|
|
|
Post by Let It Bleed on Apr 1, 2015 12:26:58 GMT -5
How many rock bands have actually been relevant worldwide since 1997? You could argue Coldplay and The Rolling Stones (who'll still be relevant when Keith Richards celebrates his 200th birthday). In today's musical climate, it's unlikely that rock bands can garner global attention and success. The Stones haven't been relevant since the late 70's.... God bless. |
|
|
|
Post by Let It Bleed on Apr 1, 2015 12:27:31 GMT -5
Radiohead have been relevant? Here in europe is WAY WAY WAY easier to find an Oasis fan than Radiohead's. How can you say they weren't relevant... I still have to understand that. Maybe you in the US live in a different world, but here in Europe they were HUGE in the 2000s as well and even people who were not diehard fans enjoyed the singles a lot. And really, who cares if they weren't relevant in the States. Not even Noel and Liam could care, except for the money. If a single country can't get Oasis that doesn't mean they're not relevant, it's a problem of the americans, it'll probably be the first country Noel will stop touring when he'll get old for different reasons. Anyway Noel is #15 in the midweek chart. www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/chart/updatealbumsDid you have it? God bless. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2015 12:28:58 GMT -5
How many rock bands have actually been relevant worldwide since 1997? You could argue Coldplay and The Rolling Stones (who'll still be relevant when Keith Richards celebrates his 200th birthday). In today's musical climate, it's unlikely that rock bands can garner global attention and success. The Stones haven't been relevant since the late 70's.... God bless. Well they can still sell out stadiums but that's another debate entirely. My original point was that there were precious few rock bands, if any, since Oasis that could claim any sort of global relevance. |
|
|
|
Post by Let It Bleed on Apr 1, 2015 12:36:58 GMT -5
The Stones haven't been relevant since the late 70's.... God bless. Well they can still sell out stadiums but that's another debate entirely. My original point was that there were precious few rock bands, if any, since Oasis that could claim any sort of global relevance. I'm not involved in any talk of selling out tours. God bless. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2015 12:40:38 GMT -5
Well they can still sell out stadiums but that's another debate entirely. My original point was that there were precious few rock bands, if any, since Oasis that could claim any sort of global relevance. I'm not involved in any talk of selling out tours. God bless. OK, forget The Stones for the time being. |
|
|
|
Post by leak4ever on Apr 1, 2015 12:43:30 GMT -5
What a ridiculous argument. Even Cliff Richard is still relevant to a certain demographic. It just depends who you ask. Get over it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2015 12:48:54 GMT -5
How many rock bands have actually been relevant worldwide since 1997? You could argue Coldplay and The Rolling Stones (who'll still be relevant when Keith Richards celebrates his 200th birthday). In today's musical climate, it's unlikely that rock bands can garner global attention and success. The Stones haven't been relevant since the late 70's.... God bless. exactly but there is a difference between being currentlly relevant and culturally relevant , the stones and vh will boith tour this summer and be hugely succesful (even tho while eddie and the band sound amazing dave cant sing , but he never could ) they along with bruce and u2 and some others were relevant for a couple of decades and earned the right to just tour , they all play over 2 hours something rare today and something even OASIS did not do regulary they give you value for your money live , why they can just announce arena and stadium tours ( like vh and the stones ) and know it will sell out and be mega , they earned that , it doesent make musically relevant anymore but the stones were musically relevant from like 63 thru 81 and vh was from 78 thru like 98 so they are culturally still relevant to me that means more IF Oasis were to reunite it wiould be huge in the uk , not a big deal in the states and pretty big in europe and asia , but not on the level that worldwide legends as the stones, vh , zep , it may not go down well on this forum and I am as madferit as anyone , but reality is reality , there implosions hurt there legacy and destroyed any chance to reach those heights to people not on this forum |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2015 12:54:51 GMT -5
What a ridiculous argument. Even Cliff Richard is still relevant to a certain demographic. It just depends who you ask. Get over it. see thats the problem with todays forum , not taking a shot at you mate at all but who is arguing  its a expression of opinions nobodys arguing , thats what made this forum great , if we just spewed the kool aid and said OASIS were be all end all wouldnt that get boring ? I LOVE OASIS but they just missed it , because they couldnt get along when it counted (on the road) and noels writing unlike say nplant or jagger taled off after a few years not a decade or decade and a half like those guys. but whos arguing ? |
|
|
|
Post by Mean Mrs. Mustard on Apr 1, 2015 13:04:39 GMT -5
How many rock bands have actually been relevant worldwide since 1997? You could argue Coldplay and The Rolling Stones (who'll still be relevant when Keith Richards celebrates his 200th birthday). In today's musical climate, it's unlikely that rock bands can garner global attention and success. Seriously? Radiohead are relevant? Well, not over here. It's also only the 90s stuff you hear on the radio. Stuff like Creep, Paranoid Android, Karma Police etc. I hardly ever hear them being mentioned anywhere. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2015 13:07:34 GMT -5
There are obviously two different perspectives, depending on where you're from. I'd argue (sorry, opine) that in the UK, they are still relevant, both musically and culturally. Walking around Glasgow you see a lot of kids and people who are a bit older that are clearly influenced by Liam's style. As Noel said 'Our kid's knocked out a few cagoules in this town." Musically they're still relevant as well. I heard Talk Tonight being played in a cafe last week. Just a normal cafe with a largely ordinary pop playlist and that's just one example I've heard recently. On very popular alternative radio stations many of their lesser known songs are played several times a day and you even hear their songs played in clubs. There are new generations of fans coming along all the time. I can't speak for the USA or any other country but in the UK, they are still a big deal. IMO  And even if they're not, does it really matter? |
|
|
|
Post by defmaybe00 on Apr 1, 2015 13:11:21 GMT -5
Seriously? Radiohead are relevant? Well, not over here. It's also only the 90s stuff you hear on the radio. Stuff like Creep, Paranoid Android, Karma Police etc. I hardly ever hear them being mentioned anywhere. This |
|
|
|
Post by Mean Mrs. Mustard on Apr 1, 2015 13:12:16 GMT -5
To me it doesn't. I like the music by Oasis and now by Noel, and I always will, and I'm happy as long as he puts out stuff I like. Whether it charts well or not I don't give a high flying fuck about.
I just like to hear Oasis as much on the radio as I do and I'd like to hear Noels solo stuff more too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Let It Bleed on Apr 1, 2015 13:20:02 GMT -5
Ok, here: Oasis didn't make relevant music after the first two albums.
They influenced popular culture and their influence is still felt, but, their music wasn't relevant after (WTS)MG?
Some great songs, ok albums but nothing transcendent after the first two albums.
Here's an example of a relevant band: the Arctic Monkeys - multiple generations currently like them and they influence culture right now.
God bless.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2015 13:22:54 GMT -5
There are obviously two different perspectives, depending on where you're from. I'd argue (sorry, opine) that in the UK, they are still relevant, both musically and culturally. Walking around Glasgow you see a lot of kids and people who are a bit older that are clearly influenced by Liam's style. As Noel said 'Our kid's knocked out a few cagoules in this town." Musically they're still relevant as well. I heard Talk Tonight being played in a cafe last week. Just a normal cafe with a largely ordinary pop playlist and that's just one example I've heard recently. On very popular alternative radio stations many of their lesser known songs are played several times a day and you even hear their songs played in clubs. There are new generations of fans coming along all the time. I can't speak for the USA or any other country but in the UK, they are still a big deal. IMO And even if they're not, does it really matter? nope dont mean crap to me saw them at knebworth , wembley loch lomond earls court , msg , and seen them at the a crappy minor leauge baserball stadium in stat isle , small shows in the early days in the uk , the beacon theatre no matter the size or amount of people I alwasys loved it and could care less who didnt but we were discussing relevancy up top and sorry outside the uk its not the same , but who cares I dont  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2015 13:23:35 GMT -5
Ok, here: Oasis didn't make relevant music after the first two albums. They influenced popular culture and their influence is still felt, but, their music wasn't relevant after (WTS)MG? Some great songs, ok albums but nothing transcendent after the first two albums. Here's an example of a relevant band: the Arctic Monkeys - multiple generations currently like them and they influence culture right now. God bless. That's fair enough. I get that their music is very popular across multiple generations but how do the Arctic Moneys influence culture? Not a dig, I'm genuinely curious. |
|
|
|
Post by lamboasis on Apr 1, 2015 13:24:15 GMT -5
If we talk commercially Oasis are still relevant. Time Flies already spent 5/6 weeks on chart this year indeed and you can easily hear someone singing Wonderwall, DLBIA ecc. on the streets of London or Manchester, or Milan, or whatever.
If we talk musically it's another thing. I would say Coldplay are irrelevant now and Tame Impala are relevant. But that's not how things work. Coldplay are relevant while Tame Impala are not. Because if Coldplay will split up tomorrow people would go mad, if Tame Impala would split up only 20 people would go mad. That's it.
Stop Crying Your Heart Out is still an Oasis' favourite here. I mean, it's one of their most famous songs, probably even more than Live Forever or Cigarettes & Alcohol on mainstream world.
|
|
|
|
Post by lamboasis on Apr 1, 2015 13:30:34 GMT -5
Ok, here: Oasis didn't make relevant music after the first two albums. They influenced popular culture and their influence is still felt, but, their music wasn't relevant after (WTS)MG? Some great songs, ok albums but nothing transcendent after the first two albums. Here's an example of a relevant band: the Arctic Monkeys - multiple generations currently like them and they influence culture right now. God bless. That's fair enough. I get that their music is very popular across multiple generations but how do the Arctic Moneys influence culture? Not a dig, I'm genuinely curious. And the majority of people who listen to AM like Oasis too. They're basically the same people. Arctic Monkeys' fuss seems already over as of now. They are relevant, the biggest british band of 2013 and early 2014 but Oasis are still relevant too on youth culture. At least in the UK. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2015 13:32:13 GMT -5
shouldnt relevancy be personal , me I LIVE IN THE PAST whats relevant to me is not maybe to you
oasis is relevant to me ,van halen zep rush gnr springsteen floyd the stones
all have seen better days yet all make up ninety percent of what I listen to so who really cares ?
my whole point was en masse OASIS are not as relevant as they once were and in reality at bthere height they were as relevant as any of the bands I mentioned worldwide
the only thing is it only lasted 2 and a half years .and i'm fine with that
|
|
|
|
Post by Let It Bleed on Apr 1, 2015 13:34:25 GMT -5
Ok, here: Oasis didn't make relevant music after the first two albums. They influenced popular culture and their influence is still felt, but, their music wasn't relevant after (WTS)MG? Some great songs, ok albums but nothing transcendent after the first two albums. Here's an example of a relevant band: the Arctic Monkeys - multiple generations currently like them and they influence culture right now. God bless. That's fair enough. I get that their music is very popular across multiple generations but how do the Arctic Moneys influence culture? Not a dig, I'm genuinely curious. The way the kid from the Arctic Monkeys dresses is how kids dress now, I think...when he completely changes his look for the next album, because he's completely fake, it'll be "cool". The Arctic Monkeys music influences other music being made. No current artists are citing DBTT or DOYS as huge influences to my knowledge. I'm sorry, I don't think some of you understand what it means to be relevant or you're really delusional. Again, it is an Oasis forum, so strong feelings are expected, but come on. God bless. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2015 13:42:20 GMT -5
That's fair enough. I get that their music is very popular across multiple generations but how do the Arctic Moneys influence culture? Not a dig, I'm genuinely curious. The way the kid from the Arctic Monkeys dresses is how kids dress now, I think...when he completely changes his look for the next album, because he's completely fake, it'll be "cool". The Arctic Monkeys music influences other music being made. No current artists are citing DBTT or DOYS as huge influences to my knowledge. I'm sorry, I don't think some of you understand what it means to be relevant or you're really delusional. Again, it is an Oasis forum, so strong feelings are expected, but come on. God bless. I don't really know how Alex Turner dresses but appearance wise he seems to have turned into a bit of an Elvis caricature over the last couple of years, especially his haircut. I think relevant means being both culturally and musically significant. I would argue that in the UK they still are but clearly not in the USA. Therefore I would see them as being relevant but you would think otherwise. |
|
its a expression of opinions nobodys arguing , thats what made this forum great , if we just spewed the kool aid and said OASIS were be all end all wouldnt that get boring ?
Nov 4, 2024 5:04:30 GMT -5
Nov 4, 2024 5:04:30 GMT -5