Oasis as life-changers

That's nice of Lars to say - Lars is one of those people who are very engaging, it's hard to disagree with anything he says because of his enthusiasm and ingenuous manner - but Metallica were much better than Oasis, IMO.

 

Name 20 smart bands that exist in 2014 & they are relatively new (existing within the last 5 years)

 

Not true. Take it from someone who lived in the UK at the time. Urban Hymns sold a boatloat (probably helped by the fact that it was still a new release when Be Here Now came out and disappointed a large portion of Oasis' fan base) but the Verve as a band, bigger than Blur? No way. The Verve prior to Urban Hymns were virtually unknown to a mainstream audience (with the posssible exeception of History) while Blur were consistent playlist saturating, tabloid-level superstars from 1994 to at least 1998. The two bands that say "90s" to the average Englishman are Blur and Oasis. The Verve wouldn't even get a look in.

On the subject of sales awards, the awards are set for sales in each country based on population size. Obviously 300,000 would not be that impressive in the US, but there are a lot more people there. IIRC platinum here in Australia is 100,000. In New Zealand it is 15,000!

EDIT - I checked. Australia platinum is 70,000.

 

I absolutely hated Oasis in 1995-96. It took my wife being in love with "Don't Look Back In Anger" for me to give them a fair shake.

As of now, we've got Morning Glory, Masterplan (which I love) and the 2 CD Time Flies, and that feels pretty complete to me. A lot of hooky loud goodness in them tracks!!!!

 

what is the class thing with Oasis (for a US observer)?

 

Working class band as opposed to, say, Blur's middle class status.

 

Exactly. This is I've learnt about class from years of reading British music mags.

Working class: Good. Unless you're a Chav.
Upper Class: Bad. But nothing is as bad as being Middle Class.

 

would you guys say there's any substance to Oasis's image as working class, or?

either way, it does make me question my preference for Blur...

 

Doesn't matter in the big scheme of things. I like them both.

 

I can't think of 1.

 

I just played "Dig Out Your Soul" this AM and realized (after not hearing it for quite awhile) that the amount of Beatle-references on that album are startling. It doesn't make you enjoy the music less as it's a terrific album overall.
One thing though, the 3rd track that Noel sings is far too much a sound-alike of The Doors "Five To One" for even myself to be comfortable with.

Oasis could pilfer from the best and make it somehow their own, that's for sure!

 

It amazes me all the negativity about Oasis!
But coming from a forum that praises ****e like the monkees or the carpenters....

 

Oasis have always been misunderstood by the masses over here.
Those who criticize them the most, know the least about them.
I know my stuff; I loved 'em.

 

There has never been a band that has made so many horrific, utter dreck filled records after two amazing ones.

And the absolute rubbish, as they say in the UK, the two lead clowns have put out on their own is beyond embarrasing.

 

Oasis definitely changed my life. My main musical interests will always lie somewhere in that magical time between 1965 and 1974 when Rock matured into a Pop artform, but the combination of Noel's songwriting and Liam's singing completely up-ended how I view music. I consider Noel a true giant in songmaking history, behind only men like Bob Dylan and Leonard Cohen.

I acknowledge they are a polarizing figure in Rock history.

 

Why would that make you question your feelings about Blur's music?

 

Fook Off mate! I'm not havin' it!(I get it, you're a critic)
By the way, you just described Radiohead in your post.

 

Yeh, probably.

 

well...as a guy who bought all of their albums, I can understand you. What I can't understand is the unnecessary bashing of The Monkees and The Carpenters

 

In my world, you can remember liking The Monkees when you were 7 (they had some fun tunes), you can appreciate Karen Carpenter's vocal style and the knack The Carpenter's had for a pop tune AND you can rock out to Oasis. Now, pass me a pint, lads!

 

I never heard of Oasis until I was driving to Myrtle Beach on vacation with my family when Champagne Supernova came on the radio. I stopped at the first record store I could find to find out who it was. The store had Definitely Maybe which I purchased, but was out of WTSMG. I own everything they released, and I like 'em. I'm a fan. They may be rubbish to some, but I know what I like.

 

basically, we're agreeing and saying the same thing

 

The first two albums were game changers...but Noel's obsession with the Beatles quickly became tedious.

The last 4 albums were filled with utter crap.

Noel only behind Dylan and Cohen?.... Cmon mate.....

 

Radiohead's first album is the only bad one they've put out.

 

The Beady Eye stuff is a bit weak because the songs just aren't there. Some of it is okay, but nothing I would want to buy.

Noel's High Flying Birds album was quite good I thought, and far from embarrassing. It sounds nothing like Oasis though, and my personal opinion is that is kind of slipped through the cracks because Oasis fans were let down, and people who might otherwise like it consciously avoided it due to the Oasis connection.

Just my 2 cents.