This might be the 29th thread about this exact topic.

This forum has some weird obsession with ‘relevancy”. The fact people are still interested in them and for those who still care about their music, yeah of course they’re relevant. They still make good albums, still well received both in terms of releases and live gigs, and throw up something different - I like the spacey lounge vibes of the last album even if it isn’t massive selling and iconic. And the album kills live.

Are they constantly looking forward? Yes. Are they relying on old tropes, old sounds and old hits? No. Are their gigs just now mere heritage act? No. All answers to these questions make them pretty relevant.

If they’d just repeated the same albums time and time again with increasing inferiority, then they’d be nowhere relevant. We should know that as Oasis fans.

To be honest 2000's Oasis albums are mostly forgotten for the general public but all that matters is the 90's. These tunes are still streamed by hundred of millions and the cultural impact Oasis made is nowhere close to what Arctic Monkeys has done. And I don't think their albums post WPSIATWIN will influence many rock bands around the world.  Still, I gotta give credit for them being the last popular rock band to come out of Britain. Since then, it's the desert.  

They're one of the biggest bands in the world.

They're as big world wide as Oasis were (i.e. sell out arenas in pretty much every country, stadiums in South America etc) by the time 2008/09 came around. 

Culturally of course they won't have the same impact as Oasis did – but not many bands will. I honestly don't think any British band other than The Beatles has had a bigger cultural, sustained impact on British culture (albeit mainly working class culture) as Oasis did.

They aren't at your Coldplay level (i.e. U2 level) but they're very much still relevant.

That being said, they're clearly just happy doing whatever they're doing. They don't exactly live in the limelight. Maybe that's down to - as Noel suggested in 2015 - them just not being that interesting in what they say. But they are fantastic musicians and Turner is clearly happy living out in L.A.

Yes they are. I can't wait for their next LP and when I see Alex in the street again, I'll pluck up the courage to ask him about it rather than hurrying away like a teenage girl. Which is what I did on Saturday.

Btw, Suck It and See is still great summer album and it's their worst record.

In the US?

Based on their last tour, they can play the same venues in the US that Oasis played at between 05-08/09?

For example, they played at Forest Hills Stadium – which has a capacity of 14,000 (about 4,000 less than MSG?)

They played two nights at the Hollywood Bowl and two nights at Bill Graham Civic Audirotium.

Over in Australia and New Zealand (I saw them in Auckland) they sold out arenas – something Oasis never actually did there (though granted they usually played the festivals in 02 and 05, and didn't go there in 2008/09, and in 98 they didn't have the same arenas that they do now in Aus/NZ).

As I've said, they're not in that 'upper tier' of bands like your Coldplay, U2 etc. That's a different level. Oasis weren't at that level really, not worldwide, even though they would be in the UK of course. 

If Oasis came back tomorrow they'd still be the biggest band in Britain by a long shot. But as far as present guitar bands go, the Monkeys are probably Britain's biggest after your Coldplay, U2 etc, but as said that's just all a completely different level when it comes to selling out stadiums world wide.

Oh, fair enough!

Obviously not trying to contradict you as you'll know more than me on their size there.

But just going off tours, they do seem to play similar venues to most 'big' British bands that are below that extreme level of stadium tours if you get my point.