Orang Utan
Psychick Worrier Ov Geyoor
You are rubbish at arguingNo.
So why not just agree to disagree and move on?
You are rubbish at arguingNo.
So why not just agree to disagree and move on?
You are rubbish at arguing
You contradicted yourself. You quoted evidence of commercial success and then denied that it meant anything to you. You are indeed rubbish at arguing.Only when there is no point.
Your argument was pointless as you could not grasp what I said and ended up just chasing your tail.
In the end it was only right I put you out of your misery before you wore yourself out
You contradicted yourself. You quoted evidence of commercial success and then denied that it meant anything to you. You are indeed rubbish at arguing.
That statement is not just about sales. It's pointing out that after 20 years, they are still being played and still sell records. Popular at the time is one thing, what with the vagaries of fashion. But popular after 20 years is generally worth a certain degree of consideration.Oasis were one of the most successful bands in UK history and their music still sells today and is played on the radio to date.
That says it all tbh.
the were the first band to appeal to the working class masses for a long, long time. hardly irrelevant.
A good record and very much of its time.
It draws heavily on other artists for most of its ideas.
Just like many bands that have one or two very popular albums Oasis thought they were more important/influential than they actually were.
I can't believe we're this far into this bunfight and no-one has called you on this crap - THE STONE ROSES for fuck's sake
set the template that Oasis rode in on with even less imagination.
as for this sales/snobbery bollocks Jesus H. Christ poor Orang must have a bloodied forehead from banging it against that wall
Everyone on here is aware of their success - it is neither here nor there in regard to whether the song is any good
when you have an opinion that's more interesting than 'it sold a lot of copies' get back to us
Well that's entirely subjective because I just hear a bunch of whining twats sucking the joy out of every tune they ripped off. But that's my opinion. I've always concluded (again in my opinion) that the reason they did so well here (and not so well abroad) especially within the 90's lad culture is because of a very British cynical reservedness that turns up its nose at anything overtly enthusiastic or original so the only logical conclusion was success for a band made of very average musicians who borrowed old songs and rewrote them at a just below mid tempo beat.Oasis had a rawness and energy to their music that still carries through to this day and makes them still very relevant for many.
Ah!are you gone girl back again??
I'm intrigued who you're referring to now.
I'd have thought creation had the money via sony already to launch Oasis without needing to go out for more funding, unless you're referring to tours etc. Might be wrong though.
here's something i am just going to make up to annoy people further.
it's 199whatever. the great british public are sat at home watching MTV and wonderwall comes on. i would have a bet that a whopping 80% of under 30 year olds stopped and thought, "that's a good song." and watched it through. across class lines, across lines of education, from the posh twat at oxford to the lonely suffering herion addict, they would have stopped what they were doing and thought, "that's a fucking good track."
not many rock groups can or have done that.
a classic tune, a great rock and roll track of our times.
I don't believe that's true. In fact I would say that while a lot of people don't particularly like the Beatles for instance it's a very small percentage who would actively dislike them whereas Oasis were generally hated by those who didn't think they were great (certainly in my circle of friends at the time).it's 199whatever. the great british public are sat at home watching MTV and wonderwall comes on. i would have a bet that a whopping 80% of under 30 year olds stopped and thought, "that's a good song." and watched it through. across class lines, across lines of education, from the posh twat at oxford to the lonely suffering herion addict, they would have stopped what they were doing and thought, "that's a fucking good track."
not many rock groups can or have done that.
I don't believe that's true. In fact I would say that while a lot of people don't particularly like the Beatles for instance it's a very small percentage who would actively dislike them whereas Oasis were generally hated by those who didn't think they were great (certainly in my circle of friends at the time).
20% is not to be sniffed atyou were part of the 20% then, next.
i think i'm not being very clear tb. what i mean is that to get a successful band in the 90s requires lots of different people doing lots of different work. there was no such thing as genuine success back in the day. if a band were charting high, getting played on tv, getting booked into prestigious gigs, getting good reviews in the music press, etc etc, a lot of backs had to be rubbed. bands were product to be sold.
it's a bit different now.
now bands can do it on their own a bit better, and create a following on their own, and the labels have created a number of ways of training young people to be product from a young age, such as the brit school.
Give reasonable evidence for your 80% claim then. Given that a large proportion of young people were turning their noses up at any guitar music at the time and of those that didn't a goodly proportion thought Oasis were shit I'd say it was more like 80/20 the other way.you were part of the 20% then, next.
I have no evidence.Give reasonable evidence for your 80% claim then. Given that a large proportion of young people were turning their noses up at any guitar music at the time and of those that didn't a goodly proportion thought Oasis were shit I'd say it was more like 80/20 the other way.
Give reasonable evidence for your 80% claim then. Given that a large proportion of young people were turning their noses up at any guitar music at the time and of those that didn't a goodly proportion thought Oasis were shit I'd say it was more like 80/20 the other way.
Neither of us can prove it but at least I've made an argument.No, Bigmoaner got it right.
Neither of us can prove it but at least I've made an argument.
Who did you used to be btw?
Hating's more fun.Focus on what you love, not what you hate, and you will be much happier.
Maaaaaaaaan.
117 posts in 5 days and fitting straight in? I'm asking what your previous ID was on these boards.What?