Was Oasis the biggest band in the world?

How about Loch Lomond?

 

How about Wembley on their final tour, just before the split?

I was there and Oasis were as popular as ever. Just as they would be if they reunited now.

An older audience, for sure, but still a massive one.

 

And again, the cultural impact of Oasis was worldwide, and still goes on. The catalogue, the charisma, the fan base, the hysteria, the timeless factor. Here comes the footage of Asia and South America again... The US is not the world.

Take The Stone Roses, they were as hyped in the UK press, played similar gigs (Spike Island '90), but didn't even sell out mid-size arenas on mainland Europe when they reunited after 15 years with a lot of hype. Oasis was unique, and global. Plenty of documentaries capturing that.

They will be even bigger than on the last tour, because unlike with many other reunions or bands mentioned who peaked in the 80's, the torch went onto a new generation. The crowds for Liam and Noel solo I've seen at festivals and solo gigs prove that.

 

Not really, there's hardly any stadiums that big in the world.

 

have you any idea what you are actually saying?

 

Whose world? Not mine.

 

But it is the largest music market, where one can make a living from licensing, unit sales, and tours. All the other markets added up together are still smaller.


oasis' moment was from '94 through '05, U2, Metallica, and Green Day all keep pace with similar numbers of best selling albums. So there is no doubt they were all successful and popular. BIggest, hard to say, more research needed. MEtallica's US sales alone consistently dwarf most bands world sales, whereas Pearl Jam has a pretty dramatic drop in sales after their first three albums.

 

All around the world...

 

Always felt they were sub status quo.

 

Oasis moment was 94 to 97. Few on here are claiming they were the biggest most popular band in the world after that. None of U2, Green Day or Metallica sold as many albums as Oasis did in that three year period. Metallica come closest, but Oasis even managed to outsell Green Day and U2 in America *where apparently they are unknown* in those years.

 

That's what this whole thread boils down to, really. You can take all the recorded facts about how many millions of records Oasis sold, or their hugely successful tours, and it's still irrelevant, because all that people care about is what they like. Oasis wouldn't make my top 50 favorite acts (maybe not even top 100), but having been around at the time, I know they were huge and doing only a little research, it's clear they were even bigger than I gave them credit for at the time.

 

Not "unknown", just not as big as everywhere else it seems. I was in my late teens in the mid-late 90s and remember the 3 big hits on the radio, but after they faded, I haven't heard those songs since.
I figured they buried themselves with their egos.
Like I mentioned before, I think most millennials here is USA would have no idea who Oasis was.

 

We don't need no stinkin' facts! (. )

Yeah, the question posed was if a brief period in the mid-90's. And, to me, it must be talking about a current-releasing new material-charting-selling-touring to big crowds-drawing acclaim/press...all these factors.

For example, if I wanted to cherry pick, I could go back 3 or 4 years and state that Roger Waters is "the biggest " (of 2013 or whatever year it was) because of high grossing tours. But, come on, I know that isn't true.

I just looked at Forbes' list of highest grossing concert tours and they have it broken down by dollars grossed, audience size and number of sellouts as compared to total number of concerts. If you look at the last 10 years, by that criteria I'd say we're practically unchanged since the 70's or 80's! McCartney, Stones, Bon Jovi, Eagles, Waters, U2 etc etc. So I don't agree with concert draw, by itself, as a determining factor of "greatest". Again, it's the whole package.

 

And now...logic? You wanna throw logic into the thread?! And research?! OMG!

 

Completely factual false, and the crux to this discussion: many US listeners are oblivious to the fact there's a world outside their own bubble.

The total volume of global music sales (77 countries) in 1996 was $39,8 billion, the US made up for $12,3 billion, that's 31%. Even just comparing the US and Japan, in 1996 Japan already had 56% of the US retail value of manufacturer shipments. (Billboard Magazine, 10 May 1997)

On top of that, let's not act like they went completely past the US either. 5 million copies of the debut alone, 4 million of the follow-up. And if we just compare 1996 again, they were the biggest UK singles band in the US as well, 'Wonderwall' was the biggest single by an UK band in the US in 1996, and only Bush beat them as active UK band with album sales that year.

The global top sellers of 1996 from the UK were The Beatles (15 million, top markets US and Europe), Queen (7,5 million, UK, Germany, France, Italy, Japan, Spain, Portugal) and... Oasis (11 million, and Billboard cites top markets US, Canada, also Europe, Australia, Asia). (Billboard Magazine, 22 February 1997)

If anything, all that added up together makes them the biggest band in the world at that point. And I'm just reacting to the wrong statements about markets and sales alone now.

 

OK...OK..they were the biggest band in the world for 3 years.....25 some years ago. BFD

 

Yes, Oasis were the biggest band in the world circa 1995-96. It didn't last long, but they really were that huge. It had been very entertaining to read the shrill denials from all of the naysayers in this thread. At the end of the day, the haters are wrong and (for whatever reasons) cannot accept the facts.

 

That's the entire crux of the thread.

 

At the time, it kind of drove me nuts, because I liked Blur, Pulp, Supergrass, etc. much more and Oasis got way more attention. Everyone I knew who wasn't particularly into music was listening to them, and they'd ask if I was excited that they were so popular. Even if people didn't like them, they knew who they were.

Does that matter in the big scheme of things? Of course not, but having seen them at the Hollywood Bowl when they toured Don't Believe the Truth and then at the Oakland Colosseum for Dig Out Your Soul, there was still clearly an audience for them.

 

"Louts" is right. They had a horrible image / attitude imo. I'm glad "lad culture" is a thing of the past.

 

Yes, I saw them in Vancouver at Rogers Arena for both of those tours and I concur completely. There were a lot of rowdy Oasis fans there, and the entire audience was standing and singing along to pretty every song. I also noticed that I was older than most of the other people in attendance (I'm 41 now). It was clear that the band was picking up some new fans, and weren't just running off fumes from their mid 90's heyday.

 

It's not that cut and dry, they were one of the biggest bands during that period, as stated U2, Green Day, Metallica, etc., and others sold just as much and then there is the Fugees, Cranberries, DMB, Alanis Morissette, Mariah Carey, etc., along with a change from grunge to pop punk and nu metal it was a very fluid time. A lot of the sales stats claimed are cumulative and at the time were ongoing, so it is hard to tell without research what specific sales were specifically in '96, '97, etc., For instance Jagged Little Pill released in '95 was still the top selling US album in '96, and still very dominant in '97, Green Day, Metallica, Fugees, etc., all had monster albums with long tail residual sales. (e.g. Dookie released in '94 sold 5 million in '96; Metallica's Load did 3 million US units '96, then an additional 1 million units in '97 both of these residual sales did as well or better than an Oasis' current release at that time. )

 

I'm personally not willing to cede that point, but yeah, generally I agree. 24 whole months of super stardom. Yippee.

 

Tonight, I'm a rock and roll star!