|
Post by Strangers on Sept 22, 2009 16:11:14 GMT -5
Nah, they're not that good. But we must realize that the music scene is not the same as 10 years ago. no, its actually infinitely better. Fair game then
|
|
|
Post by pdonidvie on Oct 27, 2009 15:20:04 GMT -5
No, The Libertines are.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2009 1:50:57 GMT -5
Nah, they're not that good. But we must realize that the music scene is not the same as 10 years ago. no, its actually infinitely better. Indeed.
|
|
Rock&Troll
Oasis Roadie
Into my big mouth, you could fly a plain...
Posts: 127
|
Post by Rock&Troll on Dec 18, 2009 21:01:37 GMT -5
no fuckin way, men!
|
|
|
Post by craigfairlie on Dec 19, 2009 14:53:51 GMT -5
No. Kasabian are!
|
|
|
Post by Rita on Dec 20, 2009 19:45:59 GMT -5
Kasabian are the closest, along with The Libertines, maybe... but still, there will never be a "new oasis".
|
|
|
Post by Liffonmelsmork on Dec 22, 2009 18:57:03 GMT -5
there will never be a "new oasis". Famous last words. Maybe for us massively dedicated lifelong fans there won't be, but there will be countless bands in years to come that will be as massive and mean just as much to people as Oasis did to us. I don't give a shit what my children will grow up listening to, but if it makes them feel half as brilliant as I did when I listened to Oasis as a kid, I'll be thrilled. That's not to say music can only be enjoyed by young people, but it's extra special discovering brilliant music as a youngster. "Life is a drink, and you get drunk when you're young" as Mr. Weller said!
|
|
very
Oasis Roadie
Tell the world that you love them in a melody
Posts: 163
|
Post by very on Dec 26, 2009 16:58:16 GMT -5
not the "new oasis" . but they are the best band of this decade IMO. there are so many good bands out there... but they are still the best.
|
|
|
Post by gaz88 on Dec 29, 2009 21:02:09 GMT -5
The Arctic Monkeys first album was really good. but since then i dont think they have been anything special. I would say Kasabian are alot better than TAM, but neither will be as big/good as oasis.
|
|
|
Post by Marcos on Jan 2, 2010 14:29:03 GMT -5
there will never be a "new oasis". Famous last words. Maybe for us massively dedicated lifelong fans there won't be, but there will be countless bands in years to come that will be as massive and mean just as much to people as Oasis did to us. i guess she meant in the sense of messing with a whole nation, like oasis did in the 90's. It wasn't just their songs.. It was their clothes, their hair, their words, etc, etc, etc. They were the voice of a whole generation. We won't see that again. Not anytime soon i think.
|
|
|
Post by gdforever on Apr 9, 2010 19:43:40 GMT -5
I know that this thread won't die...but I find it intriguing.
I think that the simple answer is 'No.' As for the inevitable rebuttle "Well, then who is?" I'll give you the answer. There is NO BAND of the significance of Oasis in the 90's.
I am going to forget comparisons of music and attitudes...because it isn't relevant and we all know that they are vastly different and it's futile to compare.
It's right that the Arctic Monkeys are probably the biggest british indie band out there @ present. Their debut was good and maybe had a similar impact to Oasis. Fastest selling debut album and all that. They crashed onto the scene with more fanfare that Oasis did even. Oasis didn't get a single to #1 until their second album. Arctic Monkeys first two singles were #1.
But then...despite the raucous start...their debut is only 4x Platinum in the UK. DM is 7x. Additionally their singles have been charting progressively lower. Their last 4 singles haven't even made the top ten in the UK. And you can't say that it is the heat wearing of. Oasis had 22 consecutive top 10 singles even during the dry periods of SOTSOG and HC when the heat was definitely off. And the charts are forgiving of declining record sales...after all...all the artists out now are competing in the same depressed market.
But why are we kidding yourselves? Oasis aren't viewed as the Goliath that they are because of Definitely Maybe. Despite all of the pretentions on this thread about DM...that album that truly made Oasis a Goliath was WTSMG. That album went multi-platinum around the world!And that is were the Arctic Monkeys truly fall behind.
You all are going on about the fact that kids nowadays listen to the Arctic Monkeys and the only reason that the others don't like it is because they are too old. THAT is exactly the point. That is the reason that they ARE NOT the new Oasis. The reason that Oasis were the monolith that they were was BECAUSE the older generation got it as much as the young kids. The Arctic Monkeys will probably never be that universal.
I agree with the person that said that the Arctic Monkeys are more like the Blur of their generation. High charting albums, Decent charting singles, Moderately large fanbase, Critical acclaim, etc.
But they have been far from a cultural or musical zeitgeist. They are part of the indie crowd and they hardly stand head-and-shoulders above their contemporaries like Oasis did. Presently the Kings of Leon and the Killers are bigger both in the UK and internationally. It doesn't matter that they are American. Oasis were on par, in terms of success, to the biggest international bands of the 90's regardless of orgins.
The fact is that the Arctic Monkey came onto the scene on a similar level that Oasis entered the scene in 1994. But Oasis' popularity grew by leaps and bounds, the Arctic Monkeys stagnated almost immediately. Despite critical acclaim and the music journalist being on their side (as opposed the adversarial stance that most journalists seem to take to Oasis) they haven't delivered on that promising start. They have been in steady decline since their debut.
|
|
|
Post by Cast on Apr 9, 2010 21:42:51 GMT -5
I saw arctic monkeys of wednesday decent gig not even close to the oasis gig I went to or even the Cage the Elephant gig I went to.
|
|
jrs40
Oasis Roadie
Posts: 400
|
Post by jrs40 on Apr 10, 2010 7:38:23 GMT -5
No way, I'm 19 living in England and when the Arctics emerged people took notice and thought "yh they're ok". They've always just seemed a bit dull to me and faded away gradually. I have all their albums but don't play them much, third one is drivel IMO.
Also this
Arctic Monkeys albums
1st- * UK: 4× Platinum[5] * AUS: Platinum[23] * CAN: Gold[24]
2nd- * UK: 2× Platinum[5] * AUS: Gold[25] * CAN: Gold[26]
3rd- * EUR:Gold[27] * UK:Gold
Oasis albums
1st-# UK: 7× Platinum[13] # CAN: Platinum[14] # US: Platinum[15
2nd- # UK: 14× Platinum[13] # AUS: 6× Platinum[16] # CAN: 8× Platinum[14] # US: 4× Platinum[1
3rd- * UK: 6× Platinum[13] * AUS: Platinum[17] * CAN: 2× Platinum[14] * US: Platinum[15]
For Be Here Now, (a 3/5 album imo at best) to sell over 8 million copies and 700,000 in 3 days in the UK, the hype and obsession would have had to be huge.
Arctic Monkeys- Indie community
Oasis- Indie community, dads, mums, primeministers
|
|
|
Post by BlueJay on Apr 11, 2010 0:07:13 GMT -5
creative output aside.....the AM's were on the scale of oasis after their debut album. it was the fastest selling debut of all time (UK) an generated an instant media frenzy aroudn the band. what separates them from oasis though is the fact that they didnt become bigger and take the next step into an international stadium band as oasis did with MG. the AM's second album although with decent reviews was condiered a letdown fro mthe first. even though MG was also considered a letdown from DM in the first reviews, the public thought otherwise and propelled oasis into an unprecedented level that their first album was never able to achieve. DM appealed only to music-buyers....MG appealed to everyone, music buyers and average joes who didnt normally buy records. the AM's debut touched on the same audience as DM, BUT so did their second album. Their 2nd album didnt have a widescale appeal and lift the AM'S into another threshold of popularity...it only retained the same fans from the first album. thats what sets oasis apart from the monkeys. the AM promised to be he next oasis....but as of yet they have not delivered. They still have great potential though, and to their credit they havent fallen from the public eye as quick as oasis did in the late nineties, but they havent reached the heights that oasis did either.
|
|
|
Post by BlueJay on Apr 11, 2010 0:10:43 GMT -5
I know that this thread won't die...but I find it intriguing. I think that the simple answer is 'No.' As for the inevitable rebuttle "Well, then who is?" I'll give you the answer. There is NO BAND of the significance of Oasis in the 90's. I am going to forget comparisons of music and attitudes...because it isn't relevant and we all know that they are vastly different and it's futile to compare. It's right that the Arctic Monkeys are probably the biggest british indie band out there @ present. Their debut was good and maybe had a similar impact to Oasis. Fastest selling debut album and all that. They crashed onto the scene with more fanfare that Oasis did even. Oasis didn't get a single to #1 until their second album. Arctic Monkeys first two singles were #1. But then...despite the raucous start...their debut is only 4x Platinum in the UK. DM is 7x. Additionally their singles have been charting progressively lower. Their last 4 singles haven't even made the top ten in the UK. And you can't say that it is the heat wearing of. Oasis had 22 consecutive top 10 singles even during the dry periods of SOTSOG and HC when the heat was definitely off. And the charts are forgiving of declining record sales...after all...all the artists out now are competing in the same depressed market. But why are we kidding yourselves? Oasis aren't viewed as the Goliath that they are because of Definitely Maybe. Despite all of the pretentions on this thread about DM...that album that truly made Oasis a Goliath was WTSMG. That album went multi-platinum around the world!And that is were the Arctic Monkeys truly fall behind. You all are going on about the fact that kids nowadays listen to the Arctic Monkeys and the only reason that the others don't like it is because they are too old. THAT is exactly the point. That is the reason that they ARE NOT the new Oasis. The reason that Oasis were the monolith that they were was BECAUSE the older generation got it as much as the young kids. The Arctic Monkeys will probably never be that universal. I agree with the person that said that the Arctic Monkeys are more like the Blur of their generation. High charting albums, Decent charting singles, Moderately large fanbase, Critical acclaim, etc. But they have been far from a cultural or musical zeitgeist. They are part of the indie crowd and they hardly stand head-and-shoulders above their contemporaries like Oasis did. Presently the Kings of Leon and the Killers are bigger both in the UK and internationally. It doesn't matter that they are American. Oasis were on par, in terms of success, to the biggest international bands of the 90's regardless of orgins. The fact is that the Arctic Monkey came onto the scene on a similar level that Oasis entered the scene in 1994. But Oasis' popularity grew by leaps and bounds, the Arctic Monkeys stagnated almost immediately. Despite critical acclaim and the music journalist being on their side (as opposed the adversarial stance that most journalists seem to take to Oasis) they haven't delivered on that promising start. They have been in steady decline since their debut. although this is a little biased...i must say i couldnt agree more. brilliantly put. just what everyone was thinking, and you finally put it into logic words that explained it beautifully. kudos to you, my friend.
|
|
|
Post by Headmaster on Apr 11, 2010 13:35:50 GMT -5
The thing is that Oasis survived the Hype, Arctic Monkey did not.
|
|
|
Post by gdforever on Apr 11, 2010 22:10:48 GMT -5
I know that this thread won't die...but I find it intriguing. I think that the simple answer is 'No.' As for the inevitable rebuttle "Well, then who is?" I'll give you the answer. There is NO BAND of the significance of Oasis in the 90's. I am going to forget comparisons of music and attitudes...because it isn't relevant and we all know that they are vastly different and it's futile to compare. It's right that the Arctic Monkeys are probably the biggest british indie band out there @ present. Their debut was good and maybe had a similar impact to Oasis. Fastest selling debut album and all that. They crashed onto the scene with more fanfare that Oasis did even. Oasis didn't get a single to #1 until their second album. Arctic Monkeys first two singles were #1. But then...despite the raucous start...their debut is only 4x Platinum in the UK. DM is 7x. Additionally their singles have been charting progressively lower. Their last 4 singles haven't even made the top ten in the UK. And you can't say that it is the heat wearing of. Oasis had 22 consecutive top 10 singles even during the dry periods of SOTSOG and HC when the heat was definitely off. And the charts are forgiving of declining record sales...after all...all the artists out now are competing in the same depressed market. But why are we kidding yourselves? Oasis aren't viewed as the Goliath that they are because of Definitely Maybe. Despite all of the pretentions on this thread about DM...that album that truly made Oasis a Goliath was WTSMG. That album went multi-platinum around the world!And that is were the Arctic Monkeys truly fall behind. You all are going on about the fact that kids nowadays listen to the Arctic Monkeys and the only reason that the others don't like it is because they are too old. THAT is exactly the point. That is the reason that they ARE NOT the new Oasis. The reason that Oasis were the monolith that they were was BECAUSE the older generation got it as much as the young kids. The Arctic Monkeys will probably never be that universal. I agree with the person that said that the Arctic Monkeys are more like the Blur of their generation. High charting albums, Decent charting singles, Moderately large fanbase, Critical acclaim, etc. But they have been far from a cultural or musical zeitgeist. They are part of the indie crowd and they hardly stand head-and-shoulders above their contemporaries like Oasis did. Presently the Kings of Leon and the Killers are bigger both in the UK and internationally. It doesn't matter that they are American. Oasis were on par, in terms of success, to the biggest international bands of the 90's regardless of orgins. The fact is that the Arctic Monkey came onto the scene on a similar level that Oasis entered the scene in 1994. But Oasis' popularity grew by leaps and bounds, the Arctic Monkeys stagnated almost immediately. Despite critical acclaim and the music journalist being on their side (as opposed the adversarial stance that most journalists seem to take to Oasis) they haven't delivered on that promising start. They have been in steady decline since their debut. although this is a little biased...i must say i couldnt agree more. brilliantly put. just what everyone was thinking, and you finally put it into logic words that explained it beautifully. kudos to you, my friend. Thanks...I do have a tendency to be a bit biased in favor Oasis...but it's kind of to be expected...I am on a fansite...
|
|
|
Post by ETrilk on Apr 21, 2010 9:41:11 GMT -5
No. Nuff said.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2010 0:53:35 GMT -5
The thing is that Oasis survived the Hype, Arctic Monkey did not. How so? You can say Humbug is bad until your face is blue, but the fact is they made the album they wanted to make. In the end, it's about not letting the hype destroy yourself. They made three albums, going on to a forth, and they are still at the forefront of the British indie scene. More importantly, I'm willing to bet Turner will look back upon Humbug and be proud of it; more then Noel can do with Be Here Now. I think both of them beat the hype. Whether or not AM last as long as Oasis is up to question, but they did successfully transition from "buzz band" to a respectable, legit act.
|
|
|
Post by mimmihopps on May 7, 2010 1:46:06 GMT -5
I'm willing to bet Turner will look back upon Humbug and be proud of it; more then Noel can do with Be Here Now. I agree. and the good thing of Arctic is that they weren't afraid to do something new. BTW I've never liked the term "Next..." like "Next Beatles", "Next Oasis".
|
|
|
Post by paranoidandroid on May 7, 2010 4:07:36 GMT -5
Where are the Arctic Monkeys?? They played a couple? of nights @ Wembley Arena (most awful venue ever) last year and a date in London a month or so ago and thats it.....no festivals? no big shows to rival that of the Manchester cricket ground a couple of years back?
Maybe they'll play the itunes festival this July...
|
|
|
Post by His Royal Noelness on May 7, 2010 9:33:50 GMT -5
Where are the Arctic Monkeys?? They played a couple? of nights @ Wembley Arena (most awful venue ever) last year and a date in London a month or so ago and thats it.....no festivals? no big shows to rival that of the Manchester cricket ground a couple of years back? Maybe they'll play the itunes festival this July... I can't see them playing gigs as big as LCC ground ever again.
|
|
|
Post by paranoidandroid on May 7, 2010 9:52:30 GMT -5
^^ really? think they've had their day?
Last album was a bit hit and miss but i dunno, i reckon they could still hold a crowd that size.
|
|
|
Post by His Royal Noelness on May 7, 2010 10:44:02 GMT -5
What they do isn't popular enough to play big gigs
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2010 14:04:35 GMT -5
Where are the Arctic Monkeys?? They played a couple? of nights @ Wembley Arena (most awful venue ever) last year and a date in London a month or so ago and thats it.....no festivals? no big shows to rival that of the Manchester cricket ground a couple of years back? Maybe they'll play the itunes festival this July... They did a short UK arena tour last year and they just finished a NA tour in Mexico this year. They said they'd start working on their new album after the tour, so I'm guessing that's what they're doing now. The only major festival they played in the UK was Reading/Leeds last year, though they also hit Lollapalooza in America and Big Day Out in Australia.
|
|