Was Oasis the biggest band in the world?

Haha 2009.

We are takin 95-96 here in this thread. Was Oasis a big deal in South America in 1994-96?

No, otherwise they would have headlined Rock in Rio 2001, which they didn't.

 

2009?

You are kidding right?

 

Of course, they were so insignificant in 1994-1996, that 15-20 years on the songs from that exact era are still resonating in that area with that whole generation and beyond.

Meanwhile, Elvis Presley wasn't a thing in Europe, Asia and Australia at all, he couldn't even get a tour together there.

 

Beatles were huge in Australia at the same time as the rest of the world.
Same goes for U2, The Police, Bon Jovi and a host of other acts that could claim biggest band in the world status.

Stitching together Oasis popularity is stretching it, Oasis in UK + Europe 94-96 + Oasis in Japan mid 2000s + Oasis Argentina 2009. No, it don't work that way.

I notice during that 2009 tour that Oasis played only one concert in Sao Paulo to 20,000 people (in a 40,000 arena). Whilst in Rio they played only in the 9,000 Citibank Hall.

Brazil is the biggest country in South America (by far). Oasis seems especially weak in that market.

Still not convincing me of biggest band in the world status. Weak in the US and weak in Brazil.

 

your distain of oasis' success around the world outside of the UK is more than impressive. You asked for proof of their reach in south America 'anytime' which you casually dismissed, and were given proof

 

And you said you didn’t believe Oasis were EVER a big act in South America, and wanted proof. And suddenly you change it to 1994-96, when shown proof from a show more than a decade after their supposed peak.

 

In Brazil they are a second tier act, even in your precious year of 2009.

They did one successful concert in Argentina and now you are claiming a continent.

Oasis have been, and always will be a medium level successful band.

 

This, and in the minds of certain Oasis fans.

Second coming of the Beatles, biggest band in the world. Give it up; they are the Arizona Cardinals or Crystal Palace of bands, middling.

 

Gotta love ALL the people that think Oasis was/is so NOT big. That they ALL just had to comment on how NOT big Oasis is/was, That this thread runs 52 pages of mostly negative sarcasm.
Just sayin'
Carry on.

 

Rolling Stone seems to suggest that they were huge and that's a US magazine as far as I remember, give it up haters! I was always more of a Blur fan but whoever was into music in the 90s knows how big they were.

 

All i know is that I was 7 years old in 1995 and Oasis is one of the few bands I remember from '95 that dominated my aunt's radio. She was only 9 years older than me and she would drive her old clunker to high school and blair Oasis every day. I have very distinct memories hanging my feet out of her car swaying to "walking down the hall, faster than a cannon ball". I'll never forget feeling like I was the coolest kid in america.

I consider them one of my all time favorite bands and defiantly one of the best 90's bands of all time.

 

Yes. What's the Story... era they were the biggest band in the world. Hit after hit from one album. You could argue they weren't there for long but they definitely were there.

 

For a band to be "the biggest in the world" at any given time, they don't have to be the biggest in every country at that time.

Oasis were big enough in sufficient places for the question to be a valid one, even if the answer is less clear.

Of the other suggested alternatives, were any of those the biggest everywhere in 94-96?

Bon Jovi weren't, Hootie And The Blowfish certainly weren't (ridiculous suggestion anyway), even the mighty U2 weren't, though probably due to those being relatively quiet years for them by their standards.

Oasis are more than worthy of their place in this discussion.

 

I recall when CD Review did an extensive article/review concerning the release of The Beatles Anthology 1.
Within that article and in a separate box, they included an extensive review of (What's the Story) Morning Glory?, as they saw the influence that one had on the other.
By the way, it got a great review and it did work, since I bought the cd and enjoyed it.
I'm sure the Brothers Gallagher beamed.

 

My father in law always refers to Oasis as a “ Beatles tribute band”

I think their first 2 albums were really strong and I remember WTSMG being released and going to HMV to go and buy and take it home for an immediate play but after that they just seem to stick the same formula and almost run out of ideas.

I still hold the first 2 albums in high regards and there are some great tracks on their other albums but it all became a bit “same old” from them

They definitely had their moment in time but I wouldn’t put them in the “super group” camp

Gary

 

they were a huge band that have and will stay the course of time , They have never been the biggest band in the world cause they haven’t got the fan base worldwide but can’t help but feel that people judge Liam and Noel especially in America because of there attitudes and it doesn’t come across very well so the music gets put to the side sometimes.

Liam is one of the best rock n roll frontmen of a generation with stage presence and attitude, last of a dying breed. Also has to be mentioned Oasis did it the right way as well, early 93-94 they were playing to crowds of a few hundred, two years later they sold out knebworth 250,000 over two nights and could have sold it out for 14 nights. That’s the impact they had.

 

Slightly off the subject of Oasis, I’m watching a documentary series about Rolling Stones magazine at the moment, half way through episode 2, it’s really good. Was a story about Tina Turner getting on the Stones bill in the late 60’s , it’s great stuff.

 

How is it called?

 

It’s called Rolling Stone: Stories From The Edge in six parts.

There showing it in the UK on a channel called Sky Arts.

 

for CHRIST sake... 52 pages for such silly question
thread title like this is a flame bait for the haters... and God knows we have enough of them around here.

NO, they were NEVER the biggest band in the world.
they COULD have been the biggest band in the world if only they would've delivered with Be Here Now...but they didn't so... NO.

one doesn't get to be the biggest band in the world in an instant... it's a build-up type thing.
The Police didn't become the biggest until their 5th album, U2 didn't become the biggest until their 5th...
Oasis was The No. 1 contender for the title back in '97 but it doesn't just handed to you... you must deliver like the Police did with Synchronicity or U2 with Joshua.
similar thing happened with G'N'R few years earlier. they had all the momentum, undisputed No. 1 contender back in '91 but...failed to deliver with Use Your Illusion.

instead of delivering the album that's worthy of the title (The Greatest Band in the World), both GNR & Oasis self-imploded/destructed with ego trips & rock cliches.
their bravado & confidence were refreshing when they started out but without music to back it up....their antics got old in-a-hurry and people just moved on to the next wave.

Oasis was the biggest band in UK & doing well all over back then (incl. US) but anything beyond that...i don't even think Noel would dare say/think that, at least not these days.
i am an Oasis fan so i WISH it were true, i wish they were/are the biggest band in the world BUT...let's try not to distort history here.

 

i don't ever recall oasis being the biggest band in the world, in fac,t most of time that oasis was in the news it concerned the gallagher brothers fist-fighting with each other in public.

 

Agreed in regards to Oasis, but Guns? I don’t have the numbers and facts but I certainly remember the Use Your Illusion years and tour to be huge. Guns n Roses were all over the place and it didn’t stop untill Nirvana and grunge came along.

 

Great post and read mate I agree, U2 dont do it for me at all, bono is a very lucky man in my opinion. Each to there own.

 

Be Here Now has aged really well in my opinion, didn’t help it following Morning Glory at the time. Maybe they should have taken abit longer to follow it up. I prefer Be Here Now to Definitely Maybe.

 

I was in my late teens during the Maybe/Morning Glory era, they probably were the biggest for a brief time.