108 replies to this topic

[pehaw]

big joe, on 09 April 2011 - 05:44 PM, said:

3. Good as they are, The Stone Roses are not in Oasis' league. Fact, baby.

Thats like saying Good as they are, Barcelona are not in Blyth Spartan's league. Fact, baby.

[big joe]

pehaw, on 09 April 2011 - 06:19 PM, said:

Thats like saying Good as they are, Barcelona are not in Blyth Spartan's league. Fact, baby.

Oh come, come. Theres nowt wrong with The Roses but the incredible success of Oasis in Britain spoke for itself. The people spoke.

[pehaw]

big joe, on 09 April 2011 - 06:33 PM, said:

Oh come, come. Theres nowt wrong with The Roses but the incredible success of Oasis in Britain spoke for itself. The people spoke.

Ah yes you're right. The Sun is a cracking newspaper too.

[big joe]

pehaw, on 09 April 2011 - 06:47 PM, said:

Ah yes you're right. The Sun is a cracking newspaper too.

Good point. The Sun is a sickening publication. However, the automatic dismissal of staggering success has always puzzled me. Album 1 sells 50,000 copies and album 2 sells 5 million copies. Why could that be? Possibly -though its not foolproof by any means- this might be an indicator of quality. There are always exceptions, but 7 No.1 studio albums, 8 No.1 singles and the biggest selling studio album in the UK since Sgt.Pepper make for compelling evidence that Oasis were rather better than the naysayers would have us believe.

[pehaw]

big joe, on 09 April 2011 - 06:54 PM, said:

Good point. The Sun is a sickening publication. However, the automatic dismissal of staggering success has always puzzled me. Album 1 sells 50,000 copies and album 2 sells 5 million copies. Why could that be? Possibly -though its not foolproof by any means- this might be an indicator of quality. There are always exceptions, but 7 No.1 studio albums, 8 No.1 singles and the biggest selling studio album in the UK since Sgt.Pepper make for compelling evidence that Oasis were rather better than the naysayers would have us believe.

I love Definitely Maybe. Its energetic, raw, loud, not over-produced and I still listen to it now and again. None of these things apply to any of the subsequent albums.

Edited by pehaw, 11 April 2011 - 08:24 PM.

[Gregcharlie]

big joe, on 09 April 2011 - 06:54 PM, said:

Good point. The Sun is a sickening publication. However, the automatic dismissal of staggering success has always puzzled me. Album 1 sells 50,000 copies and album 2 sells 5 million copies. Why could that be? Possibly -though its not foolproof by any means- this might be an indicator of quality. There are always exceptions, but 7 No.1 studio albums, 8 No.1 singles and the biggest selling studio album in the UK since Sgt.Pepper make for compelling evidence that Oasis were rather better than the naysayers would have us believe.

Those stats would suggest a pop band. And that's exactly what Oasis were, a pop band. Give me I Wanna Be Adored and I Am The Resurrection any day over that stupid, non-sensical 'itching in the kitchen' tripe of Some Might Say etc.

[PabloCoke]

pehaw, on 11 April 2011 - 08:23 PM, said:

I love Definitely Maybe. Its energetic, raw, loud, not over-produced and I still listen to it now and again. None of these things apply to any of the subsequent albums.

+1

[fatyeti24]

big joe, on 09 April 2011 - 05:44 PM, said:

I never caught The Roses first time around so it would have to be them.

Also....

1. Noel Gallagher has never claimed to be a great guitarist.

2. The Second Coming is brilliant and comfortably better than their debut album (which is great).

3. Good as they are, The Stone Roses are not in Oasis' league. Fact, baby.

maybe that's the point:  context is important.  there's a reason why so many value that album so much that goes beyond just the songs on it.  the same could be argued of Oasis' debut too.

but one of those bands by their own admission wouldn't have happened without the other.  Liam Gallagher wouldn't have had a 'style' if it wasn't for Brown.

it's always tricky arguing for who is better, particulary when a good bit of that argument is based on record sales, but it's music, it's subjective and thus there is no real right or wrong.


for my part, i've heard the music of both bands more than i'll ever need to - i wish i could still enjoy 'I am the resurrection' or 'Columbia' as much as i used to - but i did put on 'Turns Into Stone' the other night and danced all round my living room.  

[MEGABOWL]

big joe, on 09 April 2011 - 06:54 PM, said:

Good point. The Sun is a sickening publication. However, the automatic dismissal of staggering success has always puzzled me. Album 1 sells 50,000 copies and album 2 sells 5 million copies. Why could that be? Possibly -though its not foolproof by any means- this might be an indicator of quality. There are always exceptions, but 7 No.1 studio albums, 8 No.1 singles and the biggest selling studio album in the UK since Sgt.Pepper make for compelling evidence that Oasis were rather better than the naysayers would have us believe.

Westlife have 6 number one albums. Sales mean cock all.

Oasis and the Roses managed about the same amount of good music-2 studio albums and 1 B-Sides collection.