Oasis - were they the biggest band in the UK since the Beatles?

[mcshed]

6 hours ago, eastynh said:

If oasis got back together today, do people think their comeback would be bigger than the Roses one?

Definitely

[Hugh Jass]

7 hours ago, eastynh said:

If oasis got back together today, do people think their comeback would be bigger than the Roses one?

Similar size I reckon, could definitely see a few nights at Heaton Park as their big comeback. They’ll follow the Roses model of:

Year One - Heaton

Year Two - Stadia and high paying festivals.

Year Three - Glastonbury (Roses never got this far, but I imagine Oasis would once they’ve rinsed enough money from elsewhere)

[Hugh Jass]

1 hour ago, mcshed said:

Definitely

Maybe?

[mcshed]

59 minutes ago, Hugh Jass said:

Similar size I reckon, could definitely see a few nights at Heaton Park as their big comeback. They’ll follow the Roses model of:

Year One - Heaton

Year Two - Stadia and high paying festivals.

Year Three - Glastonbury (Roses never got this far, but I imagine Oasis would once they’ve rinsed enough money from elsewhere)

Surely your saying that The Roses petered out after a couple of years but Oasis clearly wouldn't.

[Xeph1995]

1 hour ago, Hugh Jass said:

Similar size I reckon, could definitely see a few nights at Heaton Park as their big comeback. They’ll follow the Roses model of:

Year One - Heaton

Year Two - Stadia and high paying festivals.

Year Three - Glastonbury (Roses never got this far, but I imagine Oasis would once they’ve rinsed enough money from elsewhere)

The Roses never playing is such a shame I thought for sure they would this time oh well. 

[Doug85]

1 hour ago, Hugh Jass said:

Similar size I reckon, could definitely see a few nights at Heaton Park as their big comeback. They’ll follow the Roses model of:

Year One - Heaton

Year Two - Stadia and high paying festivals.

Year Three - Glastonbury (Roses never got this far, but I imagine Oasis would once they’ve rinsed enough money from elsewhere)

You're probably correct with this theory, I could imagine an Oasis reunion being huge for that initial tour just like the Roses were and then interest slowly diminishing but still selling out gigs. 

To be clear though if the Roses had have made better music or actually released a new album then it could have been so different and I can't see Liam/Noel writing any more music together but I could see them touring together for the £. 

[Hugh Jass]

48 minutes ago, mcshed said:

Surely your saying that The Roses petered out after a couple of years but Oasis clearly wouldn't.

They didn't peter out. The Roses were just happy doing a few stadium gigs every year for 3/4 years and picking up the cheques. They'd probably still be churning out the same setlist this year if they hadn't fallen out again.

They admitted that money is why they never played GF, I suspect the Gallaghers would feel differently and do it for the prestige.

[stuartbert two hats]

1 hour ago, mcshed said:

Surely your saying that The Roses petered out after a couple of years but Oasis clearly wouldn't.

Oasis would split up again.  I get on very well with my brother, but when we went to visit our mum for the weekend recently, we were bickering like children by the end.  The Gallaghers are going to tour together for three years?  No chance.

[ghostdancer1]

39 minutes ago, Hugh Jass said:

They didn't peter out. The Roses were just happy doing a few stadium gigs every year for 3/4 years and picking up the cheques. They'd probably still be churning out the same setlist this year if they hadn't fallen out again.

They admitted that money is why they never played GF, I suspect the Gallaghers would feel differently and do it for the prestige.

they've already done it once for the prestige, can't see them caring about doing it again, and any reunion tour would almost certainly be about $$$ so would imagine they'd just do festivals elsewhere instead...

[GlastoEls]

Oasis are a funny one - genuinely massive for a few years, but even when the albums went mediocre and they became a singles band, they maintained a mass appeal until the end (selling three nights at Wembley during their final tour, plus Madison Square Garden, Argentina River Plate football stadium, etc).

I went to Liam’s Finsbury Park gig and it was more 18 year old kids than anything else and different to the older audience at The Roses’ Wembley show a year earlier.

I guess what they had was some sort of football type “Oasis till I die” fan allegiance which is really unique.

[Hugh Jass]

16 minutes ago, ghostdancer1 said:

they've already done it once for the prestige, can't see them caring about doing it again, and any reunion tour would almost certainly be about $$$ so would imagine they'd just do festivals elsewhere instead...

I disagree, I think they might see Glastonbury as unfinished business considering how badly they spaffed it last time. They both seem to enjoy decent relations with the fest these days and will be aware of the significance of playing it. Once the initial hype has died down and they've made their money I could easily see them doing it.

[Rose-Colored Boy]

11 hours ago, addicted2noise said:

From late 95 to the release of their third album they probably were the biggest thing since The Beatles in the UK, Be Here Now was intended to make them massive the world over but it never quite happened (due to not being very good or developing their sound). You could say Robbie Williams played more Knebworth shows but the fact that he left Take That, went solo and changed his singing voice and style of music to sound more like Oasis probably gives some idea of the impact they had.  

Completely forgot about Take That, zeesh. Even Oasis would have a hard time putting on a reunion tour more hyped up than when Take That got back together. Don’t remember there being phone lines set up for people to cry into when Oasis broke up either.

[Hugh Jass]

6 minutes ago, Rose-Colored Boy said:

Completely forgot about Take That, zeesh. Even Oasis would have a hard time putting on a reunion tour more hyped up than when Take That got back together. Don’t remember there being phone lines set up for people to cry into when Oasis broke up either.

Surely you can see the difference in fan bases to make that last point invalid?

[Rose-Colored Boy]

6 minutes ago, Hugh Jass said:

Surely you can see the difference in fan bases to make that last point invalid?

Yeah, but regardless, Take That getting back together was ridiculously massive. Can’t be bothered to look it up but I’m pretty sure the tour they did with Robbie is the fastest selling of all time, with a whole week of Wembley shows. Don’t see Oasis ever hitting quite those levels of hype, at least unless Liam and Noel both disappear from the public eye for 10 years which seems unlikely at best.

[gfest2009]

3 hours ago, Xeph1995 said:

The Roses never playing is such a shame I thought for sure they would this time oh well. 

Strangely enough the only time I've met Michael Eavis was whilst watching the Stone Roses: at Sziget in 2012. I suspected he was scouting them out, so not sure why it never transpired. 

[priest17]

It's harder for Oasis because everyone is expecting a reunion. If people treated the Take That split the same way they'd be more comparable. People are already discussing Oasis' 3 year plan for when they get back together, how can they ever match the initial we're back hype?

Phone lines would have been redundant for Oasis anyway coz of twitter and toxic masculinity innit.

[Xeph1995]

21 minutes ago, gfest2009 said:

Strangely enough the only time I've met Michael Eavis was whilst watching the Stone Roses: at Sziget in 2012. I suspected he was scouting them out, so not sure why it never transpired. 

They wanted the money and Glastonbury couldn't offer, I'm guessing they were asked each year. They even played cochcella ffs haha 

[WS_Jack_III]

I work in a school and Oasis are seen as legends to the kids. It's quite odd to me, I don't hate their music but never understood why it was so loved. 

 

Similar thing with Roses though, I think it has to do with my town more than anything. Parents who loved them have passed it on to their kids.

[clarkete]

58 minutes ago, Rose-Colored Boy said:

Yeah, but regardless, Take That getting back together was ridiculously massive. Can’t be bothered to look it up but I’m pretty sure the tour they did with Robbie is the fastest selling of all time, with a whole week of Wembley shows. Don’t see Oasis ever hitting quite those levels of hype, at least unless Liam and Noel both disappear from the public eye for 10 years which seems unlikely at best.

I think you should look it up, as there are lots of contenders, plus several different criteria you could consider which mean it isn't as straightforward as you may expect.

Depending where you look some sources talk about Stone Roses, Rolling Stones, Spice Girls and more besides.  I couldn't be a***ed after about 5 minutes as I care not a jot.

[Xeph1995]

9 minutes ago, WS_Jack_III said:

I work in a school and Oasis are seen as legends to the kids. It's quite odd to me, I don't hate their music but never understood why it was so loved. 

 

Similar thing with Roses though, I think it has to do with my town more than anything. Parents who loved them have passed it on to their kids.

The Roses's music is mile ahead of Oais's catagloue. The musicians in The Roses were actually really really good, oasis everyone is kinda pretty meh. So Id find it odd that kids love Oasis so much but I can't defiantly understand the love for the Roses.

[WS_Jack_III]

2 minutes ago, Xeph1995 said:

The Roses's music is mile ahead of Oais's catagloue. The musicians in The Roses were actually really really good, oasis everyone is kinda pretty meh. So Id find it odd that kids love Oasis so much but I can't defiantly understand the love for the Roses.

I like Roses, I just don't understand how they maintained their popularity off just 2 albums. That first one must have had some impact back in the day.

[Xeph1995]

5 minutes ago, WS_Jack_III said:

I like Roses, I just don't understand how they maintained their popularity off just 2 albums. That first one must have had some impact back in the day.

My Bloody Valentine had like 1 really good album and are still a massive favourite for a lot of people who enjoy alt rock. Sometimes all you need is one good solid album. 

if you didn't have The Roses first album id probably say you woudn't have oasis. 

Edited March 25, 2019 by Xeph1995

[Quark]

3 hours ago, stuartbert two hats said:

Oasis would split up again.  I get on very well with my brother, but when we went to visit our mum for the weekend recently, we were bickering like children by the end.  The Gallaghers are going to tour together for three years?  No chance.

I've never met your brother, but for some reason I find myself automatically taking his side

[shuttlep]

On 3/24/2019 at 7:30 AM, Pipkins said:

Oasis were nothing more than a pub band that got lucky off the back of Brit Pop, a truely hideous period for music.  Whilst I appreciate for some young people it may have seemed refreshing compared to some of the chart rubbish of the 90s, it was cheap pub rock compared to Zep, Sabbath, Purple, Queen, Ramones, Sonic Youth (I could fill a few pages here but won't).  A cultural embarrassment, the 'rock' (I employ the word lightly) equivalent of the Spice Girls or Mel and Kim that was hyped to death by the media.  It was that period's Darkness.  Darkness fans failed to see the group started as a parody, a Spinal Tap for their generation, and actually took them seriously!  They must laugh all the way to the bank.  Ever get the feeling you've been cheated...?

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

 

Now I listen to pink floyd and led Zep and I like them , but they are not my era,. yes I can see what they did with music was amazing, but still to me they will not be as big as Oasis. They were there when Music was dull and boring, and it wasn't just the music it was everything about them. The front man, the banter , the attitude. They were of their time as I am of my time. I don't get the Beatles either, I listen to them I like them ,. I can appreciate how nearly everything they did started modern music. Again though they were not of my time.  the hairs don;t stand up on the back of my neck when i hear  a beatles song. 

 

I think it is more to do with where and when you are from ,  

[stuartbert two hats]

5 minutes ago, Quark said:

I've never met your brother, but for some reason I find myself automatically taking his side

why I oughta...