Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Oasis

Options
1356789

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Oasis_Dublin
    Registered Users Posts: 2,467 ✭✭✭Oasis_Dublin


    ball ox wrote: »
    That is quite a claim. This is what I love about Oasis fans, pure deluded arrogance.
    since 1990, who has sold more albums in the UK? Apart from the recognition the Guinness Book Records afforded them (Longest Top 10 UK Chart Run By A Group with 22 consecutive top 10s between 94 and 09, they were also "Most Successful Act of the Last Decade" between 95 and 05), I would also advise you to check out the search engine on the BPIs website (bpi.co.uk) to see the platinum ratings of every album they have released. What other rock bands have sold over 200,000 tickets for two shows, as well as selling out stadiums all over Britain during the same tour? U2 were popular during this period but not Oasis popular. The same can be said of the Chilis, The Verve, Nirvana, Radiohead, Kings of Leon, Blur etc etc. Please do bear in my that I stated the UK. I do love the pure deluded ignorance of the Oasis hating brigade!


  • Options
    #63
    ball ox
    Registered Users Posts: 699 ✭✭✭ball ox


    Well I'm sure a scouting for girls fan would maintain that they are better.

    It's not a matter of who is better or who is the most amazing biggest super cool band of them all. It just always seems that the only people who harp on about X being the BEST BAND IN THE WORLD are bloody Oasis fans. Just like football fans. The argument is retarded and about as futile as arguing who the best football team is....

    Oasis wrote a few good tunes, get over it. They did not revolutionize music or do anything profound. To label any of them a genius is just absurd.


  • Options
    #64
    ball ox
    Registered Users Posts: 699 ✭✭✭ball ox


    Oasis_Dublin wrote: »
    since 1990, who has sold more albums in the UK? Apart from the recognition the Guinness Book Records afforded them (Longest Top 10 UK Chart Run By A Group with 22 consecutive top 10s between 94 and 09, they were also "Most Successful Act of the Last Decade" between 95 and 05), I would also advise you to check out the search engine on the BPIs website (bpi.co.uk) to see the platinum ratings of every album they have released. What other rock bands have sold over 200,000 tickets for two shows, as well as selling out stadiums all over Britain during the same tour? U2 were popular during this period but not Oasis popular. The same can be said of the Chilis, The Verve, Nirvana, Radiohead, Kings of Leon, Blur etc etc. Please do bear in my that I stated the UK. I do love the pure deluded ignorance of the Oasis hating brigade!

    Again, you sound like one of these Muppets harping on about how many times Utd. won the league.... popularity does not equate to greatness. If that were the case we should all revere Duck Sauce to be genius' right now.


  • Options
    #65
    Oasis_Dublin
    Registered Users Posts: 2,467 ✭✭✭Oasis_Dublin


    ball ox wrote: »
    Brilliant!

    It doesn't. You don't have to be intelligent to make music. Any gombeen can pick up a guitar, strum 4 chords and write lyrics like "grandma needs new dentures, to eat the crust on pizza" and be popular. Thereafter, it is down to each person's own taste. To claim anything else is moronic.


  • Options
    #66
    ricero
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,348 ✭✭✭✭ricero


    ball ox wrote: »
    Well I'm sure a scouting for girls fan would maintain that they are better.

    It's not a matter of who is better or who is the most amazing biggest super cool band of them all. It just always seems that the only people who harp on about X being the BEST BAND IN THE WORLD are bloody Oasis fans. Just like football fans. The argument is retarded and about as futile as arguing who the best football team is....

    Oasis wrote a few good tunes, get over it. They did not revolutionize music or do anything profound. To label any of them a genius is just absurd.

    Wonderwall,don't look back in anger,lyla,importance of being idle,do you know what I mean,let there be love,morning glory,roll with it,live forever,cigerattes and alchol,talk tonight,half the world away,shakemaker,stand by me,all around the world,rock n roll star,aquieceacne,Columbia,songbird,****ing in the bushes,shock of the lighting,falling down, I'm otta time. Yea mate a "few good songs"


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Oasis_Dublin
    Registered Users Posts: 2,467 ✭✭✭Oasis_Dublin


    ball ox wrote: »
    Again, you sound like one of these Muppets harping on about how many times Utd. one the league.... popularity does not equate to greatness. If that were the case we should all revere Duck Sauce to be genius right now.
    Young man, do me a little favour would you? Go to the dictionary (or Google.com), look up the word "successful" and then re-read the sentence in which I wrote "Oasis were the most successful rock act (in the UK) of the last 20 twenty years." Now apply your new understanding of the word successful to the above sentence. You read the sentence as "Oasis were the best rock act (in the UK) of the last 20 years" which is unfortunately not what I said, thus rendering your argument completely irrelevant. Using record sales to determine how successful a band has been is generally considered a reasonable method. Using record sales to determine how good a band are is a highly dubious method. I'm glad you now understand the difference. Good man.


  • Options
    #68
    ball ox
    Registered Users Posts: 699 ✭✭✭ball ox


    Oasis_Dublin wrote: »
    Young man, do me a little favour would you? Go to the dictionary (or Google.com), look up the word "successful" and then re-read the sentence in which I wrote "Oasis were the most successful rock act (in the UK) of the last 20 twenty years." Now apply your new understanding of the word successful to the above sentence. You read the sentence as "Oasis were the best rock act (in the UK) of the last 20 years" which is unfortunately not what I said, thus rendering your argument completely irrelevant. Using record sales to determine how successful a band has been is generally considered a reasonable method. Using record sales to determine how good a band are is a highly dubious method. I'm glad you now understand the difference. Good man.

    I do apologize sir although I must point out that I am a middle aged lady and not a young man. I do indeed stand corrected, in my haste I read "successful" as "ball grabbingly awesome" and admit that you indeed got the better of me here.


  • Options
    #69
    ball ox
    Registered Users Posts: 699 ✭✭✭ball ox


    Now Blur, there's a band.


  • Options
    #70
    Oasis_Dublin
    Registered Users Posts: 2,467 ✭✭✭Oasis_Dublin


    ball ox wrote: »
    I do apologize sir although I must point out that I am a middle aged lady and not a young man. I do indeed stand corrected, in my haste I read "successful" as "ball grabbingly awesome" and admit that you indeed got the better of me here.

    Could happen to the best of us I suppose, not to worry! Although I must say, a name like "ball ox" and a location of "yer ma, wha" is most unbecoming of a "lady"!:)


  • Options
    #71
    ricero
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,348 ✭✭✭✭ricero


    ball ox wrote: »
    I do apologize sir although I must point out that I am a middle aged lady and not a young man. I do indeed stand corrected, in my haste I read "successful" as "ball grabbingly awesome" and admit that you indeed got the better of me here.

    Can you not just admit there the best band in the last 20 years and then piss off and listen to your cliff richard records. Love forever ricero


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    ball ox
    Registered Users Posts: 699 ✭✭✭ball ox


    ricero wrote: »
    Can you not just admit there the best band in the last 20 years and then piss off and listen to your cliff richard records. Love forever ricero

    GO ON THE POOL!!!


  • Options
    #73
    ricero
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,348 ✭✭✭✭ricero


    ball ox wrote: »
    GO ON THE POOL!!!

    great 3 0 win today I'm a liverpool fan Meself now **** off and listen to oasssssiiissssssssssss


  • Options
    #74
    ball ox
    Registered Users Posts: 699 ✭✭✭ball ox


    WOW, what are the chances?!!!!
    They sure are THE BEST TEAM IN THE WORLD


  • Options
    #75
    ricero
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,348 ✭✭✭✭ricero


    ball ox wrote: »
    WOW, what are the chances?!!!!
    They sure are THE BEST TEAM IN THE WORLD
    After that comment and ur comments of oasis not being the best band in the world ever!!! I have concluded u are A mental patient nd this is your hour time on the Internet u crazy st john of gods sona bitch go listen to my chemical romance :D


  • Options
    #76
    ball ox
    Registered Users Posts: 699 ✭✭✭ball ox


    yes


  • Options
    #77
    StereoLove
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,068 ✭✭✭StereoLove


    I have to say, I agree:) Oasis are the best!:D


  • Options
    #78
    Android 666
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,577 ✭✭✭Android 666


    Oasis_Dublin wrote: »
    You describe Liam Gallagher as "somebody with the iq of a lobotomised seal" before stating that "Thom Yorke might be a gombeen, I don't know, but at least he seems to have a bit of intelligence when it comes to the creation of his music." You seemed to be suggesting that artists like Radiohead, with their (attempted) university degrees and classical music training, are far superior to Oasis, with their disgustingly low IQs, who could only record "one or two okay songs" in 15 years. That is slightly pretentious in my opinion. I'll withdraw the use of the word "tw*t", it was extremely needless.

    I never said that the band had disgustingly low IQs, only Liam. The rest of the lads are probably all lovely fellows but one bad apple and all that malarkey. Okay, intelligent is probably the wrong word here so I'll substitute it for interesting and I never suggested what you claimed at all. The most interesting band of the last 30 years for me are also a Manchester band called The Fall. Mark E Smith never went to college but was original and inventive and his use of language is amazing - something that could never be said of Oasis. Don't try and put words in my mouth
    Oasis_Dublin wrote: »
    "I never once said that you needed to have degrees to make intelligent music." I never once said that Oasis made "intelligent music", whatever that even is. They do (did) however, make music that I find enjoyable to listen to. Like I said previously, I don't check the university qualifications of the artist before I decide whether their music is worthy of my appreciation.

    And nor do I. Why are you recycling this argument?

    Oasis_Dublin wrote: »
    Gallagher probably has inspired some amount of gobsh*t*s, heaven knows there were plenty of the at Slane last year!

    If they make such boring and underwhelming music, why did you go out and buy the last album? Why have you listened to their back catalogue as well? They must have been doing something to draw you in if you are implying that you know all of the music Oasis have made. It would suggest that they have written and recorded more than "one or two okay songs" during their career, would it not? To just take the last album, there were many highpoints (Falling Down, The Shock of the Lightning, The Turning) on it and one or two lowpoints (Get off Your High Horse Lady probably being the best example). There is definitely a gap in your story if you are claiming that Oasis are useless and yet you know every single song they have ever recorded and you know the back stories to their albums.

    Where's the gap in the story? I told you in a moment of madness I bought the album. Sometimes I buy albums on a whim. I didn't have to fill out an application form demonstrating loyalty to the band or show an Oasis tattoo to buy it. I had the song Shock of the Lightning sound it have decent and decided to give the ablum a listen. I wish I hadn't. After buying the record and retiring it I read the story about Noel essentially putting out a half baked album. Again, I never claimed to have listened to every Oasis song. I like my ears too much
    Oasis_Dublin wrote: »
    Perhaps Noel didn't have the drive anymore. He knew he was going to sell 3m records and sell out venues no matter what he released. He was also extremely wealthy. You can't however, lump songs like "The Importance of Being Idle" and "Falling Down" in with "Mucky Fingers" or "Sunday Morning Call" and call Oasis' music collectively boring because that would be a horrible generalisation.

    Congratulations Noel, you figured out in 5 or 6 years what it took the Rolling Stones 20 odd years to figure out. You can release any old tat for an album because it gives you an excuse to do a world tour and play the hits off your first couple of albums. Bully for you. A think a more horrible genealisation would be to say that no matter what rubbish they release they are still the 'greatest rock and roll band'.


  • Options
    #79
    Android 666
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,577 ✭✭✭Android 666


    Oasis_Dublin wrote: »
    It doesn't. You don't have to be intelligent to make music. Any gombeen can pick up a guitar, strum 4 chords and write lyrics like "grandma needs new dentures, to eat the crust on pizza" and be popular. Thereafter, it is down to each person's own taste. To claim anything else is moronic.

    So you're really proving here that you can be sh1t, write sh1t lyrics and still be popular. Much like Oasis then...


  • Options
    #80
    Android 666
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,577 ✭✭✭Android 666


    ricero wrote: »
    After that comment and ur comments of oasis not being the best band in the world ever!!! I have concluded u are A mental patient nd this is your hour time on the Internet u crazy st john of gods sona bitch go listen to my chemical romance :D

    So you're only line of defence is to name some other band you don't like and say the person is a fan of them? That's a pretty powerful argument you've got going on there and it really slays everyone in its path. I hate Chemical Romance myself and no I haven't listened to every single song in their catalogue but I can base it on the songs that I have heard on the radio or the videos I have seen on the television. But they've released an album there recently and I think they done something that illustrates what bands should do if they care about the music they release. They recorded an album and when they sat down and listened to it felt it would be an injustice to themselves and the fans to release it. You see they actually wanted to make an album that mattered to themselves and their fans. Could you see Oasis bothering to rewrite an album if they thought it was half baked like their last attempt? The simple answer is no, did release the album and just go on their prebooked world tour. Like I said I'm not a fan of Chemical Romance but I'll usually read any music related article I come across be it about Aphex Twin, Rihanna, Oasis, Blur or Showaddywaddy, doesn't mean I'm going to like any of the music.


  • Options
    #81
    d.anthony
    Closed Accounts Posts: 424 ✭✭d.anthony


    Some people just don't like successful bands, like them twats you get that when you ask them what kind of bands they like they say, ''Oh, you wouldn't have heard of them''.

    Fact is, Oasis were a pop-culture phenomenon, had multiple number 1 singles, reached number 1 with every album and hold the UK record for the biggest crowd at a rock concert (Knebworth, 1996).

    You can't argue with success.

    Best band of my generation, without a doubt.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Android 666
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,577 ✭✭✭Android 666


    d.anthony wrote: »
    Some people just don't like successful bands, like them twats you get that when you ask them what kind of bands they like they say, ''Oh, you wouldn't have heard of them''.

    Fact is, Oasis were a pop-culture phenomenon, had multiple number 1 singles, reached number 1 with every album and hold the UK record for the biggest crowd at a rock concert (Knebworth, 1996).

    You can't argue with success.

    Best band of my generation, without a doubt.

    This isn't about not liking successful bands. One of my favourite bands is the Beatles so I think that argument is moot.

    Using your argument of success then you would have to concede defeat against Westlife. But that argument is nonsense because Westlife prove you can be succesful and sh1t. Showaddywaddy were successful and sh1t, as were Bay City Rollers, Barry Manilow, Black Eyed Peas, Nickleback and a myriad of others.


  • Options
    #83
    Kold
    Registered Users Posts: 12,778 ✭✭✭✭Kold


    But like... Radiohead were the best band of the last 2 decades. So Oasis can't possibly have been. It's just simple logic here.


  • Options
    #84
    ball ox
    Registered Users Posts: 699 ✭✭✭ball ox


    Android 666 wrote: »
    This isn't about not liking successful bands. One of my favourite bands is the Beatles so I think that argument is moot.

    Using your argument of success then you would have to concede defeat against Westlife. But that argument is nonsense because Westlife prove you can be succesful and sh1t. Showaddywaddy were successful and sh1t, as were Bay City Rollers, Barry Manilow, Black Eyed Peas, Nickleback and a myriad of others.

    Couldn't agree more.
    To be honest I think D. Anthony has summed it up quite well here
    Fact is, Oasis were a pop-culture phenomenon
    So was the Numa Numa guy...

    Just because an extraordinary amount of people will buy something it does not necessarily merit that what they are purchasing is of a very high quality.
    It just proves that people are sheep.


  • Options
    #85
    ricero
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,348 ✭✭✭✭ricero


    Kold wrote: »
    But like... Radiohead were the best band of the last 2 decades. So Oasis can't possibly have been. It's just simple logic here.

    Arguably you could make that point radiohead are an amazing band haven't made a terrible album really when you think of it I'd rate pablo honey as their worst. But did they define a generation ? Frankly no oasis got rid of that grunge ****e and brang back rock n roll,music rivarly,a lead singer he didn't give a **** and they were mad fer it.after there first 2 albums they were selling out stadiums and could of invaded America if not for liam acting the knob but **** it they were still big over der. Oasis peaked to soon that was there problem after what's the story people expected another album ofthat class even though there other albums are still good with 2 being quite frankly decent at best. Just like the beatles they defined a generation


  • Options
    #86
    d.anthony
    Closed Accounts Posts: 424 ✭✭d.anthony


    Android 666 wrote: »
    This isn't about not liking successful bands. One of my favourite bands is the Beatles so I think that argument is moot.

    Using your argument of success then you would have to concede defeat against Westlife. But that argument is nonsense because Westlife prove you can be succesful and sh1t. Showaddywaddy were successful and sh1t, as were Bay City Rollers, Barry Manilow, Black Eyed Peas, Nickleback and a myriad of others.

    I understand your point about Westlife but it's not really 'music' is it? It's karaoke, and most of their fans are little girls and women, which is a huge market. They cater for the idiots, much like the X-Factor.

    I see Oasis as different, because they write their own songs and music and I see that as REAL music, and for people that like bands who make their own, they are the most successful in a long time.

    I don't like Radiohead, Blur, Coldplay but I respect the fact they're making music and wouldn't go around saying they are ****e etc, it's just my taste.


  • Options
    #87
    Live4Ever
    Registered Users Posts: 539 ✭✭✭Live4Ever


    Oasis are the best band of the last two decades. Even if they only released the first two albums they would still sell out slane today.

    They will stand the testiment of time, just like The Beatles did.

    As for the radiohead argument, which is off point, who is better known with a bigger fan base? Oasis.

    Oasis could have been twice as big as they are now if Liam had played that tour of America. Yeah he was a knobhead not playing it, but that is all part of who Oasis are.

    They are cocky and loud mouthed, but musical geniuses and the absolute definition of rock stars. They don't subject their fans to the same tripe Bono, Chris Martin or Radiohead do. They come out, play the tunes and rock the venue to it's foundations.

    Nuff said.

    Live forever!


  • Options
    #88
    Oasis_Dublin
    Registered Users Posts: 2,467 ✭✭✭Oasis_Dublin


    Android 666 wrote: »
    I never said that the band had disgustingly low IQs, only Liam. The rest of the lads are probably all lovely fellows but one bad apple and all that malarkey. Okay, intelligent is probably the wrong word here so I'll substitute it for interesting and I never suggested what you claimed at all. The most interesting band of the last 30 years for me are also a Manchester band called The Fall. Mark E Smith never went to college but was original and inventive and his use of language is amazing - something that could never be said of Oasis. Don't try and put words in my mouth



    And nor do I. Why are you recycling this argument?




    Where's the gap in the story? I told you in a moment of madness I bought the album. Sometimes I buy albums on a whim. I didn't have to fill out an application form demonstrating loyalty to the band or show an Oasis tattoo to buy it. I had the song Shock of the Lightning sound it have decent and decided to give the ablum a listen. I wish I hadn't. After buying the record and retiring it I read the story about Noel essentially putting out a half baked album. Again, I never claimed to have listened to every Oasis song. I like my ears too much



    Congratulations Noel, you figured out in 5 or 6 years what it took the Rolling Stones 20 odd years to figure out. You can release any old tat for an album because it gives you an excuse to do a world tour and play the hits off your first couple of albums. Bully for you. A think a more horrible genealisation would be to say that no matter what rubbish they release they are still the 'greatest rock and roll band'.

    Now your taking out your use of the word intelligent thus rendering the whole discussion on intelligent pointless.

    "You see, I have listened to their back catalogue... Again, I never claimed to have listened to every Oasis song." Which is it there fella? I'm sure you can now see why I feel there is a gap in your story! Again, I would have to seriously question the logic of someone who claims that Oasis have "one or two okay songs" in the previous 14 years and yet you would go out and buy their new album based on another "decent" song in The Shock of the Lightning! Your interest in Oasis is quite bizarre; I don't like Westlife and as such I don't sit "on the bog" reading articles about them. If you think Oasis' music is a pile of "old tat" then maybe you should stop listening to them! Quite simple really!!

    I attended tour dates on both the Don't Believe The Truth and Dig Out Your Soul Tours and the two albums were extensively included within the setlists. Of course it would be disgustingly arrogant of Noel not to include Live Forever or Wonderwall within the tour setlist, but not even he is that arrogant! In the same way Radiohead played Creep at Marlay Park and Coldplay played Clocks at the Phoenix Park, bands accept the fact that certain songs made them popular and enabled them to play in such large venues and that it would be a royal smack in the mouth for the fans if the band did not play some earlier material.

    I think this discussion has gone as far as it can.


  • Options
    #89
    Oasis_Dublin
    Registered Users Posts: 2,467 ✭✭✭Oasis_Dublin


    Android 666 wrote: »
    So you're really proving here that you can be sh1t, write sh1t lyrics and still be popular. Much like Oasis then...

    You can "be ****"? What the fudge does that even mean? Surely whether an artist makes good or bad music (in the sense that it is nice to listen to) is down to each individual listener and not down to you, Lord Android?!

    I more listen to music for the actual music as opposed the lyrics. "River cool's where I belong... we'll set sail again, we're heading for he Spanish main... cut the kids in half." Hardly awe inspiring lyrics but still 3 of my favourite songs. Anyone can find meaning in lyrics if they want, even if Noel didn't intend their to be any meaning in them!


  • Options
    #90
    Live4Ever
    Registered Users Posts: 539 ✭✭✭Live4Ever


    Oasis_Dublin wrote: »
    I think this discussion has gone as far as it can.

    Oasis ARE the best!

    Toooooniiiiiigghht I'm a rock and roll steeeeeaaaar!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    strobe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,872 ✭✭✭strobe


    grandmaster wrote: »
    It was being played on the radio and stuff and a few months later they released Some Might Say and that's the one that nailed me. I remember listening to Atlantic 252 and them saying "We have Oasis's new single coming up next" and it was Whatever and I was getting annoyed as their latest was Some Might Say and that was the one I was desperate to hear.

    :D That's some old school shit right there.


Advertisement