Oasis

erceefce

where are the Oasis-fans

??

It's waiting until May for the new album

Karl Hungus

I'm afraid most of the Oasis fans moved onto whatever the next brit-rock fad was sometime in the late 90's.

erceefce

The topic '5 best albums', there are two people with oasis on the first place :cool:

dregin

Then why ask when you've obviously already found both oasis fans??

zAbbo

Im a fan, but come on, that boats sailed

erceefce

dregin wrote:

Then why ask when you've obviously already found both oasis fans??

two is not enough

Karl Hungus

erceefce wrote:

two is not enough

Enough for what exactly?

Goodshape

Enough to make them in any way popular. You're right - it's not. They aren't.

Jimmy_Jazz

erceefce wrote:

The topic '5 best albums', there are two people with oasis on the first place :cool:

I think I'm one of those two.

Goodshape wrote:

Enough to make them in any way popular. You're right - it's not. They aren't.

Oasis are as popular as ever. I guarantee you that the first single off the new album will top both the UK and Irish charts, as will the album.

Karl Hungus

Jimmy_Jazz wrote:

I guarantee you that the first single off the new album will top both the UK and Irish charts, as will the album.

Wow! The charts you say!? If they get in the charts they can be as cool as Daniel Beddingfield and whatever flaccid twonk is the flavour of the week. :rolleyes:

Jonny Arson

Yay I thought I was the only person in Ireland who still loved Oasis.

Oasis are still frickin' huge - FACT Their gig at Marlay Park is sold out. They are playing huge shows all across the UK and their show at Madison Square Garden is sold out.

I still love Oasis. They are the reason I got intop music in the first place. It cannot be denied that they have had a huge influence on so many people. I know that N.G. is not a lyrical genius but Oasis are an anthems band and nobody does anthems like Oasis and they are still a cut above the rest today. They will never top Definitely Maybe. Moring Glory was fcuking huge aswell but sadly 'Be Here Now' screwed them. 'Be Here Now' was nowhere near the disaster that so many people made it out to be but it was an album that had potential to be alot better but sorely needed more work in the studio.

Judging by 'Heathen Chemistry', Oasis are still fab and I can't frickin' wait for the newbie in May. They are still my heroes to this day and I'm still definitely .... MAD FER IT!

Oh I've got to say in honour of LG ...... SUNSHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINE!

erceefce

I find Heathen Chemistry and (What's the story) Morning Glory ? the two best albums

mobile04

ok heres my 2 cents on this half great band.
well let me explain.
50% of the band meaning noel.. mabye the best song writer of current times. worldwide .
i cant stand the sight of liam. BUT.. when there on stage they do have a certin thing that makes them so powerfull . i saw them in liverpool manchester and the point.

very very disapointed in the point gig. but mabye after seeing them at maine road. thats just too much to live up tooo?
the def mabye album was a monster hit . i still give it a spin and whats the story is so anthem like... the other albums medioka too say the least a little bit rushed i think?

but the new album i was delighted when i heard the album was getting pulled back. actualy 2 times it got delayed .
im just hoping it was delayed because they want to take theier time and get it right .. and not milking it.. as to the point of letting people get this album hyped up . and then just let it go flat as a pancake when its released.

i taught the george michael patience... was a simalar thing for me.. what a load of boll_0x and it was years of work . for mabye 2 good songs.. well thats just me...
ps... any oasis fans
try have a listen to the 2 cd album rare version of whats the story import...
very good.....cough i got a spare one ....ehh mmmmm

cournioni

I like the Masterplan album. The rest are so so, or ****.

I am MAN

I dont listen to music as soft as Oasis anymore but something inside me tells me that I cant diss them, they where so good back in the day.

toffo

Like the first 2 albums. Not impresses with them live, seen them twice and both times the support act was better.

koneko

I can't think of a band I dislike more.

I saw them live and it was woeful. Not only were they bad, the crowd was the most immature I've ever seen at any concert. I swear I must have been hit by about 5 bottles from drunk scumbags. Worst concert I've ever been to.

Toffy - were you at the one in Landsdowne Road? I agree, Supergrass were about a 1000 times better than Oasis.

Shane Smith

koneko wrote:

I swear I must have been hit by about 5 bottles from drunk scumbags.

Ah u probably deserved it

"I said maybeeee..."

Schnozzberries

I love oasis they kick butt

Sarky

Zane from MTV2 wrote:

Oasis are still frickin' huge - FACT Their gig at Marlay Park is sold out.

Uh, so was Bryan Adams' last gig there in Marley Park...

Jonny Arson

Sarky wrote:

Uh, so was Bryan Adams' last gig there in Marley Park...

Bryan Adams ....... ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

Are you trying to say Bryan Adams is in the same league as Oasis?

I was just stating that Oasis are still frickin' huge in Ireland and they are as popular as ever and will always be popular.

Sarky

Zane from MTV2 wrote:

Are you trying to say Bryan Adams is in the same league as Oasis?

No, no, not at all, you've completely misunderstood. I meant exactly the opposite. What I was trying to say is that Oasis is in the same league as Bryan Adams.

Phil_321

Oasis' first two albums are class but they went seemed to run out of steam after that. I think Noel Gallagher basically just ran out of ideas. I'd love to see a return to form from them with the new album.

NotMe

This thread demonstrates why non-metal fans don't like posting about non-metal bands in the rock/metal forum.

Jimmy_Jazz

mobile04 wrote:

very very disapointed in the point gig.

You can't really judge any band on their performance at the Point because the sound is consistently awful. It's just a poor venue in general.

koneko wrote:

I saw them live and it was woeful. Not only were they bad, the crowd was the most immature I've ever seen at any concert. I swear I must have been hit by about 5 bottles from drunk scumbags. Worst concert I've ever been to.

I've had the same experience at a couple of concerts, including Oasis in 2003 and Velvet Revolver last month. Two completely different bands, but more or less the same scumbags! It's hardly the bands' fault.

Karl Hungus wrote:

Wow! The charts you say!? If they get in the charts they can be as cool as Daniel Beddingfield and whatever flaccid twonk is the flavour of the week. :rolleyes:

Point taken, but I was simply emphasising the fact that Oasis are as popular as ever. The matter of them being any good or not is, I'm sure you'll agree, not directly related to their chart success.

NotMe wrote:

This thread demonstrates why non-metal fans don't like posting about non-metal bands in the rock/metal forum.

Exactly!

Karl Hungus

Jimmy_Jazz wrote:

You can't really judge any band on their performance at the Point because the sound is consistently awful. It's just a poor venue in general.

I'd disagree there. I remember the sound being perfect in the Point when I went to see David Bowie, not to mention Iron Maiden. I think you'll find that the sound you get on the night of a gig rests mostly on how good the sound engineer is, and how well he gets the mix to suit the venue itself. If the sound is bad at a gig I'd lay the blame on the sound engineer not doing a proper sound check.

Jimmy_Jazz wrote:

Point taken, but I was simply emphasising the fact that Oasis are as popular as ever. The matter of them being any good or not is, I'm sure you'll agree, not directly related to their chart success.

Of course I agree. Popularity never has anything to do with how good a band is.

NotMe wrote:

This thread demonstrates why non-metal fans don't like posting about non-metal bands in the rock/metal forum.

And your post demonstrates why a seperate board would be an extremely bad idea. This is a discussion board, hence people discuss things, and opposing opinions are nessicary to this end, otherwise every thread would read the same posters exclaiming "Yep" "Uh-huh" ad naseum. Lets take the whole Metallica debate for instance, where there's many different opinions and often people will get into very long, heated debates over the whole thing. So, by your standards there should be two seperate boards for Metallica, one for, one against!

Jimmy_Jazz

Karl Hungus wrote:

This is a discussion board, hence people discuss things, and opposing opinions are nessicary to this end, otherwise every thread would read the same posters exclaiming "Yep" "Uh-huh" ad naseum.

That's a good point, but I think an "Indie" forum would still remain general enough to avoid this - remember the Oasis/Blur debates?

Jonny Arson

Sarky wrote:

No, no, not at all, you've completely misunderstood. I meant exactly the opposite. What I was trying to say is that Oasis is in the same league as Bryan Adams.

Oooh ahhhh Sarky's sarcasometer is reaching sky high!

NotMe wrote:

This thread demonstrates why non-metal fans don't like posting about non-metal bands in the rock/metal forum.

Eh Oasis are rock.

I definitely think there should be an indie forum as the Metalheads are truly ruling this forum.

Karl Hungus

Jimmy_Jazz wrote:

That's a good point, but I think an "Indie" forum would still remain general enough to avoid this - remember the Oasis/Blur debates?

What's wrong with debate? And why exactly would you want to avoid it? It's the very thing that makes discussion boards interesting.

NotMe

Here hold on a second:

Karl Hungus wrote:

And your post demonstrates why a seperate board would be an extremely bad idea.

First of all, how does my post demonstrate that?

Karl Hungus wrote:

This is a discussion board, hence people discuss things, and opposing opinions are nessicary to this end, otherwise every thread would read the same posters exclaiming "Yep" "Uh-huh" ad naseum. Lets take the whole Metallica debate for instance, where there's many different opinions and often people will get into very long, heated debates over the whole thing. So, by your standards there should be two seperate boards for Metallica, one for, one against!

Secondly, NO I never said anything about having separate boards. I was just pointing out that this thread is a good example of what a lot of people were talking about recently.

zane from mtv2 wrote:

Eh Oasis are rock.

Eh, yeah I know. :rolleyes:

Karl Hungus

NotMe wrote:

Here hold on a second:

First of all, how does my post demonstrate that?

Er... What the hell!? I explained it all in the following part of my post, which you seperated into two quotes! That's akin to if I took what you've just said above, and did this:

First of all

First of all what?

NotMe wrote:

Secondly, NO I never said anything about having separate boards. I was just pointing out that this thread is a good example of what a lot of people were talking about recently.

Regaurdless, it's still an example of why seperate boards are a bad idea.

NotMe

Karl Hungus wrote:

Er... What the hell!? I explained it all in the following part of my post, which you seperated into two quotes! That's akin to if I took what you've just said above, and did this:



First of all what?

haha.. very funny

Regaurdless, it's still an example of why seperate boards are a bad idea.

Yeah. Wouldn't it be good if people could be a bit more tolerant of bands they don't like though? I mean it's ok to say you don't like the band or you think they're crap or whatever but slagging people over the kind of music they listen to is going a bit far.
Sure I think Oasis are CRAP but I didn't feel the need to tell the original poster when he asked if there were any Oasis fans here.

Karl Hungus

NotMe wrote:

Yeah. Wouldn't it be good if people could be a bit more tolerant of bands they don't like though? I mean it's ok to say you don't like the band or you think they're crap or whatever but slagging people over the kind of music they listen to is going a bit far. Sure I think Oasis are CRAP but I didn't feel the need to tell the original poster when he asked if there were any Oasis fans here.

Now I'm looking over this thread again, and while there is certainly people who are voicing their opinions on Oasis being crap, but not one person actually slagged someone who consider Oasis to be good. I'm sure you can appreciate the difference between saying "So and so are crap!" and "So and so are crap, and you're a ****ing retard for liking them!" I'm sure you'll agree there's a very distinct difference there, and as long as nobody crosses that line, it's all fair play. I certainly couldn't advocate a policy of only posting opinions that are in agreement with the original poster. It's back to the notion of "Anyone like so and so?" and everyone else who'd reply would just say "Yep" "Uh-huh" and so on. It's pointless, especially when you consider what a discussion board is for.

The thing you'd have to keep in mind is that provided a seperate 'Rock' board was instituted, that certainly wouldn't mean that nobody would voice their dislike of the band, and I'm fairly sure you don't have to like Metal to hate Oasis. As Jimmy Jazz points out, what about the Blur/Oasis debate? I imagine a thread about that particular topic could get just as heated as the Metallica/Megadeth debate!

Another thing that could be a factor is that for the most part, Metal bands are fairly unknown compared to the likes of Oasis, so if I was to create a thread about Death, there'd be a select few people who'd reply to that, as most people wouldn't have heard of Death, they'd just go "Who?" and move on, whereas everyone has heard Oasis and as such, has an opinion on them.

Just for the record, I like blur.

Jimmy_Jazz

Karl Hungus wrote:

What's wrong with debate? And why exactly would you want to avoid it? It's the very thing that makes discussion boards interesting.

Bit of a misunderstanding here, I think. I meant that an Indie forum would remain general enough to avoid "Yep" and "Uh-huh" threads - not to avoid debates! I was suggesting that the Oasis/Blur debate would thrive in an Indie forum.

Karl Hungus wrote:

Just for the record, I like blur.

So do I!

NotMe

Karl Hungus wrote:

Now I'm looking over this thread again, and while there is certainly people who are voicing their opinions on Oasis being crap, but not one person actually slagged someone who consider Oasis to be good.

Ok, I read back over the thread and I noticed that your first reply was only slagging most Oasis fans and not all of them so maybe I overreacted.

I'm sure you can appreciate the difference between saying "So and so are crap!" and "So and so are crap, and you're a ****ing retard for liking them!" I'm sure you'll agree there's a very distinct difference there, and as long as nobody crosses that line, it's all fair play. I certainly couldn't advocate a policy of only posting opinions that are in agreement with the original poster. It's back to the notion of "Anyone like so and so?" and everyone else who'd reply would just say "Yep" "Uh-huh" and so on. It's pointless, especially when you consider what a discussion board is for.

I agree.

Karl Hungus

NotMe wrote:

Ok, I read back over the thread and I noticed that your first reply was only slagging most Oasis fans and not all of them so maybe I overreacted.

That's some pretty broad definition for 'slagging' so.

BolBill

Their first album is still their best IMO, and now that they've gotten rid of that tosser White on drums, the new album should be good.