Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2016 5:38:24 GMT -5
Liam Gallagher: 'Oasis did in three years what took The Beatles eight'Liam Gallagher has again compared Oasis to The Beatles, saying that the band achieved the same level of success and impact but in a much quicker time.
The former Beady Eye frontman was interviewed in Little White Lies by Mat Whitecross, director of the new Oasis documentary Supersonic.
When Whitecross mentions how Oasis went from being signed to headlining Knebworth in just three years, Gallagher replied: "What we did in three took the Beatles eight. Good, y’know, fuckin’ rightly so. I thought we were the bollocks and I thought we’d be doing that all over the world.
"I thought America would buy it, everyone would buy it… But that my friend is cocaine for you."
When asked why Oasis didn't crack America with as much success as they did the rest of the world, Gallagher replied: "I don’t know man, they like all the razzmatazz don’t they and we weren’t given them any of that. They thought we were vaginas and they didn’t know how to handle us so it was move along boys y’know what I mean.
"But I’m fuckin’ glad about it. We could’ve gone over there and married an American actress and got a house in Malibu and started wearing biker jackets and pointy shoes and all that shit."NME article
|
|
|
Post by guigsysEstring on Oct 6, 2016 7:56:02 GMT -5
I agree with Liam in the respect of an immediate cultural impact and sales that Oasis did achieve their success a lot quicker than The Beatles, although I would argue that when the Fab Four were starting out it was very much into the unknown in terms of expectations, later musical direction and overall reception.
Oasis by contrast by the time of 'Definitely Maybe' had over thirty years of rock n' roll history and releases to draw upon as influences, whilst Paul McCartney for example arguably influenced as many bassists as James Jamerson and Jaco Pastorius with innovative (Rain), steady (Get Back) and Subtle (Tomorrow Never Knows) styles using the legendary Motown bassist as a starting point but pushing the pop/rock style forward using his own developed techniques. Similar comparisons could be argued for his band mates, even Ringo Starr who influenced many drummers to play with a 'matched' grip, which is arguably an easier style of playing than the traditional jazz grip and made it easier for aspiring drummers to develop their talents.
Oasis in the USA has been dissected a lot of late, including by me, so I won't go into that too much again. Obviously the all conquering nature of Oasis in the UK was never replicated on the same level elsewhere, whilst The Beatles had a profound and lasting impact musically and socially around the world. I think in fairness any band would have struggled to replicate The Beatles impact, although as has been said before with different attitudes, decisions before and after Knebworth along with other aspects of that era I do believe they could have gone on to do what Coldplay or U2 achieved in terms of breaking the USA long term both with record sales and as personalities in the wider social sense.
This isn't to put Oasis achievements down as I love the band and the songs, and I would say that most if not all of their nineties British contemporaries especially would have given anything for the kind of career that Oasis enjoyed. The Beatles though for a combination of era, musical progression, personalities and songs simply had more impact than Oasis and nearly every other band before or since have had, and that makes for a truly exceptional and unique story.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2016 8:11:10 GMT -5
But isn't it a bigger accomplishment to fulfill the expectations of people exactly because of all the things that have been done in the past? They had to "overcome the past" and sound fresh in order to become what they were. That's why I consider them actually to be more successful than The Beatles (who I also love)... And, The Beatles were also influenced by other artists. In fact, they ripped off other people's songs; the very thing Oasis often gets accused of. Rock & Roll to me is one kind of music to which every band contributes something and creates something new out of it without neglecting it's past influences. I love it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2016 8:13:04 GMT -5
The Beatles were responsible for bringing rock'n'roll to the mainstream in almost every country of the world. You could argue that Oasis achieved similar sales and success and all that, but overriding cultural impact they (Oasis) have fallen well short of the lofty mark set by The Beatles, especially outside of England.
No one regards Oasis in the same way as The Beatles and it's not even that close honestly.
|
|
|
Post by Mean Mrs. Mustard on Oct 6, 2016 8:17:09 GMT -5
Oasis are nowhere near the Beatles and never will be.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2016 8:22:44 GMT -5
I always have a feeling that when you compare something to The Beatles it has the same effect when you comapre something to the Nazi's. The discussion always end.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2016 8:28:39 GMT -5
The Beatles were more influential - can't deny that, but they were in my opinion not better than Oasis. Certainly not in their prime.
|
|
|
Post by guigsysEstring on Oct 6, 2016 8:42:46 GMT -5
The Beatles were more influential - can't deny that, but they were in my opinion not better than Oasis. Certainly not in their prime. As I said before each to their own although The Beatles didn't have over thirty years of influences from late 1960's rock n' roll, glam, punk and other sources to draw upon
|
|
|
Post by guigsysEstring on Oct 6, 2016 8:44:16 GMT -5
I always have a feeling that when you compare something to The Beatles it has the same effect when you comapre something to the Nazi's. The discussion always end. The difference being that with The Beatles it's usually a musical debate and with the Nazis it's someone whose lost a political debate and is reduced to throwing random insults including that and the "ist" based ones to compensate
|
|
|
Post by guigsysEstring on Oct 6, 2016 8:45:47 GMT -5
But isn't it a bigger accomplishment to fulfill the expectations of people exactly because of all the things that have been done in the past? They had to "overcome the past" and sound fresh in order to become what they were. That's why I consider them actually to be more successful than The Beatles (who I also love)... And, The Beatles were also influenced by other artists. In fact, they ripped off other people's songs; the very thing Oasis often gets accused of. Rock & Roll to me is one kind of music to which every band contributes something and creates something new out of it without neglecting it's past influences. I love it. You didn't work in the marketing department of Sony Music in the nineties did you? That phrase for some reason is bringing back memories
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2016 8:47:59 GMT -5
The Beatles were more influential - can't deny that, but they were in my opinion not better than Oasis. Certainly not in their prime. Simply put... Oasis do not exist without The Beatles.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2016 8:50:13 GMT -5
But isn't it a bigger accomplishment to fulfill the expectations of people exactly because of all the things that have been done in the past? They had to "overcome the past" and sound fresh in order to become what they were. That's why I consider them actually to be more successful than The Beatles (who I also love)... And, The Beatles were also influenced by other artists. In fact, they ripped off other people's songs; the very thing Oasis often gets accused of. Rock & Roll to me is one kind of music to which every band contributes something and creates something new out of it without neglecting it's past influences. I love it. You didn't work in the marketing department of Sony Music in the nineties did you? That phrase for some reason is bringing back memories Overcoming the past is a load of bull. "Truly we stand on the shoulder of giants." You are an amalgam of the past. You survive because of it, not in spite of it.
|
|
|
Post by Lennon2217 on Oct 6, 2016 11:40:20 GMT -5
"Oasis did in three years what took The Beatles eight"
Pretty sure The Beatles from late 1963 to 1965 were all world conquering. Hello.........Beatlemania. Oasis never accomplished that on any level. All that happened within the first 2 years of The Beatles recording career. So no Liam, it didn't take The Beatles 8 years.
|
|
|
Post by tomlivesforever on Oct 6, 2016 12:30:41 GMT -5
The Beatles were more influential - can't deny that, but they were in my opinion not better than Oasis. Certainly not in their prime. Simply put... Oasis do not exist without The Beatles.
|
|
|
Post by matt on Oct 6, 2016 14:43:05 GMT -5
'Oasis did in three years what took The Beatles eight'
No..... just.... fucking hell.... no.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2016 18:27:34 GMT -5
You didn't work in the marketing department of Sony Music in the nineties did you? That phrase for some reason is bringing back memories No, but I have thought about it, and that was the conclusion I made. Talking about marketing. I remember my mum talking about the most outrageous kinds of "Beatles merchandise" being sold when she was younger. She was never a fan of them; she thought it was music for "little girls" who were hysterical to the point of complete madness..."Beatlemania"... Did it have much to do with the actual music during that era? Would they have become as popular as they were without making these overly-sweet love songs? I think not. As much as I like them, I think The Beatles are massively overrated by people. Nobody dares to criticize their almost "divine" status in music. We're talking about a band that started out playing tunes of other Rock & Roll bands. Yeah, Oasis are superior in every aspect I think...
|
|
|
Post by guigsysEstring on Oct 6, 2016 18:44:44 GMT -5
You didn't work in the marketing department of Sony Music in the nineties did you? That phrase for some reason is bringing back memories No, but I have thought about it, and that was the conclusion I made. Talking about marketing. I remember my mum talking about the most outrageous kinds of "Beatles merchandise" being sold when she was younger. She was never a fan of them; she thought it was music for "little girls" who were hysterical to the point of complete madness..."Beatlemania"... Did it have much to do with the actual music during that era? Would they have become as popular as they were without making these overly-sweet love songs? I think not. As much as I like them, I think The Beatles are massively overrated by people. Nobody dares to criticize their almost "divine" status in music. We're talking about a band that started out playing tunes of other Rock & Roll bands. Yeah, Oasis are superior in every aspect I think... Kiss took the insane marketing aspect further than anything The Beatles or Oasis ever could have dreamed of, and unlike the 'Beatlemania' merchandise the band who adorned the various products was actually seeing the money (in particular Gene Simmons). During that era of their career The Beatles were lucky to be earning money from record sales and publishing, never mind secondary revenue streams such as that, whereas by the 1970's and certainly the 1990's most artists including Oasis earned some sort of revenue on any official merchandise bearing their name or likeness. Beatlemania as a named concept was the product of A&R and Marketing meetings like most other youth based phenomenons that need a name to shift associated overpriced tat merchandise. Any artist across the genres who has had a degree of success as a rule of thumb is guilty of having had tacky merchandise to some degree or other released in my experience Would Oasis have been as popular without the arguably sentimental ballad Wonderwall? The same charge can easily be levelled there as that song broke radio and TV airplay for them at a time when the industry was geared for a repeat of 'Definitely Maybe' sales or perhaps less. Similarly requests from some sections of Sony Music for 'Don't Go Away' to be the lead US single from 'Be Here Now', which was seen by certain A&R/Marketing and radio pluggers as having the same kind of appeal as Wonderwall? It has been debated many times on here in other threads but perhaps that song would combined with other decisions and an overall better approach have helped to create a lasting US legacy along the Coldplay or U2 lines for Oasis in the USA. The Beatles may well be overrated by people but I am (sadly) old enough to remember the pre-Britpop days when it was acceptable in UK music circles to discuss both negatives and positives of the Fab Four's music and career. It was people like the Gallagher brothers and the whole culture that sprung up around that time (1994-1997) that greatly assisted in elevating The Beatles to their untouchable status in so many quarters. The Beatles, Oasis and every rock n' roll band before, in between and since has started out playing covers, even the exalted Radiohead were not adverse to doing covers of The Smiths in their early days, but it is what you create and the legacy you leave overall that counts for most people, not whether or not you covered Jerry Lee Lewis in a German nightclub or The Stone Roses in a Mancunian rehearsal room during the early stages of your musical career. You are entitled to your opinion of course but for myself personally as much as I like Oasis there is nothing to me that suggests they were ever ahead of The Beatles. In some ways the whole "The Beatles are so overrated" argument is exactly the same as the mid-nineties and later accusations thrown at Oasis simply because both bands were highly thought of by their fans and popular with a more widespread audience.... As always each to their own, and as I am so fond of saying different opinions keep these forum ticking over nicely
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2016 19:04:39 GMT -5
to go from being a band no-one had heard of to playing 2 nights at knebworth to 250,000 people in the space of three years is impressive as shit.....but that was really it for oasis, people gradually turned away and moved on to other things and oasis' quality of music ebbed away.
oasis was more a successful fad really whereas the beatles had a wider impact in music an generally had a huge success rate across most of the world, oasis was huge in the UK, they never really got america on their side, theres even a video of oasis playing in 97 after the huge success period and theres a guy saying they arnt too bad and have some good songs after apparently only hearing them there for the first time, it just didnt happen for oasis on a global level.
I will sit here and say though that I dont put the beatles above oasis, I simply dont because their music doesnt connect with me the same way.
|
|
|
Post by Lennon2217 on Oct 6, 2016 19:09:36 GMT -5
to go from being a band no-one had heard of to playing 2 nights at knebworth to 250,000 people in the space of three years is impressive as shit.....but that was really it for oasis, people gradually turned away and moved on to other things and oasis' quality of music ebbed away. oasis was more a successful fad really whereas the beatles had a wider impact in music an generally had a huge success rate across most of the world, oasis was huge in the UK, they never really got america on their side, theres even a video of oasis playing in 97 after the huge success period and theres a guy saying they arnt too bad and have some good songs after apparently only hearing them there for the first time, it just didnt happen for oasis on a global level. I will sit here and say though that I dont put the beatles above oasis, I simply dont because their music doesnt connect with me the same way. You can also say that about The Beatles. From a band no one heard of in 1961 to a band everyone in the world knew in 1964.
|
|
|
Post by gemarcher1 on Oct 6, 2016 19:48:19 GMT -5
In UK this was true.
|
|
|
Post by Lennon2217 on Oct 6, 2016 19:49:40 GMT -5
Oasis was never bigger than The Beatles in England. Think how big The Beatles were 1964-1965. Way way way WAY bigger than Oasis 1995-1996.
|
|
|
Post by glider on Oct 6, 2016 19:52:16 GMT -5
'Oasis did in three years what took The Beatles eight' No..... just.... fucking hell.... no. The thread should've closed with this post.
|
|
|
Post by Lennon2217 on Oct 6, 2016 19:59:19 GMT -5
Diehard Oasis supporters losing their grip on reality in this thread.
|
|
|
Post by glider on Oct 6, 2016 20:01:47 GMT -5
Die hard Oasis supporters losing their grip on reality in every thread.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2016 20:12:48 GMT -5
I don't think it's fair to compare them, different time.
Like I said, when you prefer something the Beatles it's like comparing somebody with a Nazi, the same effect. (I've that feeling)
I prefer Oasis above The Beatles. There I said it.
|
|