Was Oasis the biggest band in the world?

And Blur's overrated.

 

I don't agree. I find Blur to be rather overrated, Oasis may not be my favourite band by any imagination but they do have some good tunes. Blur doesn't.

 

On an American music forum. A disgrace!

 

Its the whole quiet/loud thing, but with the quiet part removed

 

So is Oasis IMO.

 

Maybe 1% The La's?

 

I have heard Slade name-dropped before as an influence on Oasis. I do hear some T. Rex in Oasis.

 

No. The height of their commercial success was between What's the Story and Be Here Now, and they were not the biggest band in the world between 1996 and 1998 (although they were big). Which begs a question: who was the biggest-selling act (with current, new music available) during that window?

 

They were well bigger than Blur outside the UK. Much, much more popular in the States. That's a pretty big market by comparison.

 

Oasis was much, much bigger than Blur worldwide. Nirvana was done in April of '94.

 

None of those three bands you named had any real success outside of the U.S. That's like our pro sports teams having commemorative merch that says "World champions!" when the league is entirely North American teams. They absolutely dominated the rest of the world with Morning Glory, more than any other rock band during that brief time period.

 

Yes, but the moniker "World Champions!" regarding American sports (most notably baseball) is just a hold over from late 19th Century/early 20th century hype---think "The Greatest Show on Earth", "The Finest Coffee in the Universe!" Most people realize this.

And baseball is getting more "worldly" as players these now come from all over the Caribbean and Latin America, Japan/Taiwan/South Korea and Australia as well as US and Canada.

 

Yes they were. They toured and sold out venues across Europe, America, the Far East and Australasia. The countries they were particularly huge in were UK, Ireland, Italy, Sweden, Switzerland, Canada, Argentina, Japan, Australia - when you factor in the WORLD and see how many countries they played in from 1996-98, yes they were the biggest band in the world. They may not have 'broken' the States but they still sold a hell of a lot of records and played to a hell of a lot of fans there. Be Here Now got to number 2 in the US.

 

Far and away Celine Dion, then the Backstreet Boys, then the Spice Girls.

 

Utterly wrong. MG dominated in the UK and that's it. There is tons of rock albums from mid-90s that outsold it everywhere besides the UK/Ireland. The Cranberries were bigger than Oasis in most markets to start with.

 

Totally wrong, MG dominated in Canada, Australia, Sweden, Switzerland, just to name a few countries.

 

Huh? Please make sure to inform yourself before making such wild claims. Jagged Little Pill sold twice more than MG in Canada, Mellon Collie and the Infinite Sadness outsold it too, so how can it be 'dominant'? Same in Australia, even MJ's double album History outsold MG, same for Forgiven, not Forgotten (the Corrs). Spice and No Need To Argue sold more upon release too, MG caught them with catalog sales only. In Sweden it is barely among the Top 5 top selling international albums from 1995. In Switzerland, it isn't even top 10, Queen's Made In Heaven sold more than 2 times more, even Floyd's Pulse is a bigger seller, so are compilations Love Songs (Elton) and Greatest Hits (Bruce). The album hasn't even made it to Platinum by then while Made In Heaven, D'Eux, Falling Into You, History etc went 3xPlatinum in no time.

Being #1 for one week is not "absolutely dominating" a market, tons of albums hit #1 every year in every country. Saying Oasis dominated Switzerland is the same as saying the Boo Radleys dominated the UK in 1995.

 

Are you unable to keep track of your own arguments? You made a claim that the Cranberries were bigger than Oasis in most markets. He, I presume, actually bothered to look up your claim and saw that you were lying through your teeth.

The Cranberries did very well, but did not do better in more markets. That is the point you made and that is the point he answered. Do your self and everyone else a favor and actually read what people are responding to.

And please name all the markets that the Cranberries did better than Oasis. As, according to both their wiki pages, Oasis did better in more individual markets.

In fact according to each of their wiki pages MG has sold 22 million, DM 16 million. BHN 8 million giving a total of 46 million. The Cranberries best selling album only reached 17 million, according to their wiki page so it seems likely that Oasis did better at both their peaks. If you compare both bands overall career (which is not really what this topic is about) there is no contest as the Cranberries fall from grace was even worse than the Gallaghers.

 

Agreed. One of the most acutely observed and minimalist sitcoms ever. Caroline Aherne was a true genius and will be sorely missed.

 

How was I lying? No Need To Argue outsold MG in France, the US, Brazil, Mexico, Germany, Spain, Netherlands, Switzerland, Austria, Finland etc. Even selling 4m less in the UK it is still the best seller of both WW.

The simple fact you refer to wikipedia as your source show you have no clue of what you are talking about. The figures you quote are pure nonsense. DM sold 6m WW and you are copying 16m, seriously?

The message I was answering was claiming that Oasis "absolutely dominated" most markets with MG, may I ask in which country outside the UK/Ireland it was the top selling album, or even one of the top 5 best selling albums, of 95/96?

And no, this thread is NOT about Oasis bigger than the Cranberries from 1994 to date, instead if they were ever bigger than every act, including them. They were obviously weaker than them in 94/95 so it ends the debate. That they continued longer and sold better during the 00s is just 100% irrelevant.

 

Blur is more "clever" than they are good. Their songwriting is nowhere near as great as Oasis. They were elitist/cerebral (or pretentious), while Oasis was more emotional and "salt of the earth." When it comes to music, emotion beats intellectualism every single time.

 

In all fairness, that was exactly how they presented themselves to America...as being "better than the Beatles". The first time I saw them on MTV, they were bragging about their album being "better than Sgt Pepper".

So that comparison, however unfair, was their own fault as far as American audiences went. And it didn't work particuarly well.

 

Laughable on almost every level.

 

Wow, I feel a lot of emotion in Blur's music! "This is a Low", "Sing", "The Universal", "Beetlebum", "No Distance Left to Run"...emotionless, pretentious ?
And they sure knew how to write a song - if anything, post Graham Coxon Blur is debatable. But before is top notch. Very good band.

The song they covered with Noel Gallagher is probably among the ones I like the least by the way : "Tender".

It's like saying there's no emotion in The Divine Comedy because Neil Hannon is very well-read. Well, "Tonight we Fly" is much more emotional to me than every Oasis song combined.

 

Yes, it's too bad that Blur is a bit of a joke compared to Oasis.