|
|
Post by batfink30 on Apr 1, 2015 19:00:41 GMT -5
True, but I never said they did.  Radiohead went on to release not one but two masterpieces after their acclaimed Ok Computer in 1997. The album's being Kid A in 2000 and In Rainbows in 2007. Sadly Oasis would never rise to the heights of DM or MG again. Kid A and In Rainbows masterpieces?! I assume you're being sarcastic. |
|
|
|
Post by Lennon2217 on Apr 1, 2015 19:01:33 GMT -5
Radiohead went on to release not one but two masterpieces after their acclaimed Ok Computer in 1997. The album's being Kid A in 2000 and In Rainbows in 2007. Sadly Oasis would never rise to the heights of DM or MG again. Kid A and In Rainbows masterpieces?! I assume you're being sarcastic. Nope. 100% legit statements. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2015 19:04:16 GMT -5
I really don't care for Kid A.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lennon2217 on Apr 1, 2015 19:07:04 GMT -5
I really don't care for Kid A. The rabbit hole isn't for everyone.  |
|
|
|
Post by batfink30 on Apr 1, 2015 19:07:21 GMT -5
I really don't care for Kid A. In Rainbows is OK in parts but Kid A isn't great. Certainly not masterpieces IMHO. |
|
|
|
Post by Lennon2217 on Apr 1, 2015 19:10:42 GMT -5
I really don't care for Kid A. In Rainbows is OK in parts but Kid A isn't great. Certainly not masterpieces IMHO. It's been hailed as a masterpiece in many places for going on 15 years. Very innovative album in terms of music, change of style and release pattern. Something Radiohead would become accustomed to. |
|
|
|
Post by Let It Bleed on Apr 1, 2015 19:12:02 GMT -5
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 think you've got that the wrong way around - AM were constantly getting less culturally relevant before 2013, so they changed up their style to adapt to current trends and got back in the game. Sure, Alex Turner has a rather distinctive look, but it's one that has been around since 1950. Well, I'm not hip to their fashion trends, but musically Arctic Monkeys are relevant. Oasis are legends in the U.K. but not relevant. Hell, Oasis aren't even a band anymore! I know I sound like an asshole to some of you, and I admire the passion around here and I really do find some of the fandom around here intimidating, I'm jealous and inspired by it actually, it reminds me of my younger self - I’ve got into phyiscal fights about Oasis. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Post by batfink30 on Apr 1, 2015 19:15:07 GMT -5
In Rainbows is OK in parts but Kid A isn't great. Certainly not masterpieces IMHO. It's been hailed as a masterpiece in many places for going on 15 years. Very innovative album in terms of music, change of style and release pattern. Something Radiohead would become accustomed to. Yeah, I like some of Radioheads stuff but they've just never really caught me. Personal taste at the end of the day. |
|
|
|
Post by World71R on Apr 1, 2015 19:45:45 GMT -5
True, but I never said they did. Radiohead went on to release not one but two masterpieces after their acclaimed Ok Computer in 1997. The album's being Kid A in 2000 and In Rainbows in 2007. Sadly Oasis would never rise to the heights of DM or MG again. However, I would argue they were about 3-4 tracks away with Dig Out Your Soul. The song stretch from Bag it Up to To Be Where There's Life (yes, even GOYHH) is fantastic, and shows that they were right back on track. Fucking shame it didn't end like that. |
|
|
|
Post by wozdareden on Apr 1, 2015 19:47:42 GMT -5
Kid A is definitely a masterpiece. I wouldn't say that about In Rainbows.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sternumman on Apr 2, 2015 0:27:22 GMT -5
If we talk commercially Oasis are still relevant. Time Flies already spent 5/6 weeks on chart this year indeed . Is Bob Marley still relevant? Legend is in the Billboard 200 constantly and hit the top ten last year 30 years after it was released. |
|
|
|
Post by Sternumman on Apr 2, 2015 0:55:53 GMT -5
Legacy acts can still sell doesnt mean they are still relevant.
Since 2002 Springsteen has had 6 #1 albums in the UK and US and 9 in Sweden if you count compilations. His last album went to #1 in 14 countries. He was the Superbowl halftime show a few years ago, opened the Grammys three years ago, played at the President's Inauguration and last year made over $81 million touring. Is he musically or culturally relevant today? NO.
|
|
|
|
Post by lamboasis on Apr 2, 2015 2:42:14 GMT -5
Yeah, I bet Radiohead with their #7 album The King of Limbs and their #71 single The Daily Mail are still inspiring people. I mean, I can't even cross the corner in London without hearing someone singing Morning Mr Magpie and talking about how The King of Limbs changed their life and modern music.
And Is Noel still relevant? According to you I would say no. He'll not inspire anyone with Chasing Yesterday. Even though is on the top of the bill in British rock and NGHFB actually sold more copies than Radiohead's last three album combined in UK. I don't give a shi* about the critics. The so called critics gave numerous awards to Beyonce and nothing to Oasis, Queen or The Who. They're too smart for us, if they say something it is true. The american critics love a radical chic band like Radiohead who think they are too smart for the world (just like their fans). No way, I wouldn't have thought that in a million years.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mean Mrs. Mustard on Apr 2, 2015 2:49:39 GMT -5
I just saw this Beyonce video the other day in which she was "dancing" (aka moving like a spaz and hitting herself on the head or something).
Bitches be cray cray.
|
|
|
|
Post by space75gr on Apr 2, 2015 3:25:27 GMT -5
I just saw this Beyonce video the other day in which she was "dancing" (aka moving like a spaz and hitting herself on the head or something). Bitches be cray cray. LOL.spot on! plus the good reviews + the sales + the awards + chart positions and WE FINALLY FOUND OUR NEW OASIS in...well...Beyonce !btw,music is about music,not being ...relevant. |
|
|
|
Post by tomlivesforever on Apr 2, 2015 3:44:13 GMT -5
Legacy acts can still sell doesnt mean they are still relevant. Since 2002 Springsteen has had 6 #1 albums in the UK and US and 9 in Sweden if you count compilations. His last album went to #1 in 14 countries. He was the Superbowl halftime show a few years ago, opened the Grammys three years ago, played at the President's Inauguration and last year made over $81 million touring. Is he musically or culturally relevant today? NO. If Springsteen has released an album of quality and creative merit then I would say he is musically relevant. How can anyone say otherwise? Right now one of those albums might be influencing a talent for the future. His apparently brilliant live shows are a part of that to. |
|
|
|
Post by Mean Mrs. Mustard on Apr 2, 2015 4:08:45 GMT -5
I just saw this Beyonce video the other day in which she was "dancing" (aka moving like a spaz and hitting herself on the head or something). Bitches be cray cray. btw,music is about music,not being ...relevant. I fully agree with this. |
|
|
|
Post by Lennon2217 on Apr 2, 2015 6:01:43 GMT -5
Yeah, I bet Radiohead with their #7 album The King of Limbs and their #71 single The Daily Mail are still inspiring people. I mean, I can't even cross the corner in London without hearing someone singing Morning Mr Magpie and talking about how The King of Limbs changed their life and modern music. And Is Noel still relevant? According to you I would say no. He'll not inspire anyone with Chasing Yesterday. Even though is on the top of the bill in British rock and NGHFB actually sold more copies than Radiohead's last three album combined in UK. I don't give a shi* about the critics. The so called critics gave numerous awards to Beyonce and nothing to Oasis, Queen or The Who. They're too smart for us, if they say something it is true. The american critics love a radical chic band like Radiohead who think they are too smart for the world (just like their fans). No way, I wouldn't have thought that in a million years. "It's not about record sales, it's about being real....." Nobody said The King of Limbs was an incredible body of work. It does contain some fantastic songs (Bloom, Lotus Flower, Codex, Separator). The real point here is that the album before King of Limbs (In Rainbows) was a masterpiece. That wasn't that long ago. Late 2007. Trust me, nobody would declare Oasis making magical albums after 1995. |
|
|
|
Post by defmaybe00 on Apr 2, 2015 6:08:12 GMT -5
Who gives a fuck about critics
|
|
|
|
Post by space75gr on Apr 2, 2015 6:11:31 GMT -5
# 10 Noel Gallagher's High Flying Birds 8,015
|
|
|
|
Post by defmaybe00 on Apr 2, 2015 6:15:00 GMT -5
Oh btw I think Jonny Greenwood is more influential than Radiohead themselves,lots of guitarists started playing the guitar because of him,same with Graham Coxon
|
|
|
|
Post by Lennon2217 on Apr 2, 2015 6:25:14 GMT -5
Oh btw I think Jonny Greenwood is more influential than Radiohead themselves,lots of guitarists started playing the guitar because of him,same with Graham Coxon The scores he comes up with for Radiohead songs are insane. Also look at his work on There Will Be Blood. He was cheated out of an Oscar nomination. The music in that film was the third major character after Daniel Day Lewis and Paul Dano. |
|
|
|
Post by Let It Bleed on Apr 2, 2015 7:01:07 GMT -5
Some of us just have different definitions of relevance....here's an example of my definition: Tom Brady
Tom Brady isn't relevant outside of the U.S., but that doesn't mean he's not relevant for starters.
Tom Brady still does what he's known for, and was just part of winning the highest honor in his profession, on top of being really good at it.
I don't consider a band not being together for over five years and releasing their best and what work they'll be most remembered by almost 20 years ago,as being relevant.
And relevance doesn't necessarily translate to greatness. One Direction are relevant today but I wouldn't consider them great.
Anyway, again, sorry if I upset anyone, that's my interpretation.
I'll always love Oasis and probably consider them my favorite band ever and they'll always mean a lot to me.
God bless.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Milkman & The Riverman on Apr 2, 2015 7:46:20 GMT -5
The truth is, in 20 years time Oasis will be remembered as one of the legends of popular music along with The Beatles, Stones, Nirvana etc. while Arctic Monkeys will be hardly mentioned as one of the indie rock bands wave at the time along with The Strokes, The Kooks etc. And that's where they really are and should be.
I think Oasis became so popular only because of the cool times that 90's were. They would never repeat that now. It's natural that AM are having such a huge success right now because they turned themselves into a bunch of pussies, and their new record's target are fuckin' teenagers. Oasis never did that thankfully so it's a phenomenom that they sold so many records anyway with that attitude. And that's Oasis real goal. Becoming so succesful without giving a fuck' for 20 years. They were always beyond the trends at the same time always making the charts.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mean Mrs. Mustard on Apr 2, 2015 7:53:04 GMT -5
Oasis will NEVER be seen as a legend among the Beatles. They weren't nearly as influencial.
|
|
Nov 4, 2024 5:04:30 GMT -5
Nov 4, 2024 5:04:30 GMT -5