Why are Oasis so respected when everything after their second album is horrific?
The second album itself is good but massively overrated, and not a patch on the actually-great debut record. Don't understand the fuss about this band at all. Sure, it could be differing opinions, but it could also be people getting swept up in a scene and refusing to let go (see: the even less prolific Stone Roses).
- 11 months ago
Who respects Oasis? They were a radio friendly bar band who probably started out playing Beatles covers. They've always sucked big time.
- amyLv 611 months ago
You only think that because you listen to Oasis fans. They are the worst. Oasis fans never got over anything filled with absolute idiolisation, bitterness and salty. They are the worst. What made Oasis "great" was that they came in late after everyone elses work at the time of cobains death and got the american market something no other britpop band had done. Thats it. Not a great claim.
- moezlanskiLv 711 months ago
That is exactly why they stayed at the top for so long. The scene helped propel them. And they where a money making machine. They could sell out an area no problem. And they are still talked about today, because of the Gallagher brothers hatred for one another. All you need is a little bit of success. And fans that will go to the ends of the Earth. For that band, there are some bands that never really had even one semi successful album. But a song or two from one album. And they where able to take it far. They milked it for all they could. As long as there is money involved, and very little effort in making it. Anything can be successful. This is true not just in music. Music is a medium where you dont need a lot, to potentially go far. And with technology where it is today. You dont need a label nor a multi-million dollar studio. You can go grassroots, and you maybe the next big thing. Also music is subjective and opinions run rampant. Its part of what makes it great.
- Anonymous11 months ago
Oasis themselves is a difficult band which plays music that most people outside of the U.K. just dont get. I do not understand it myself and I listen to some of the most difficult music out there (Oval, Einsturzende Neu Bauten, Cluster, Merzbow, The Pop Group, Wire, Gorguts, etc).
But I can respect it for what it is.
"Sure, it could be differing opinions"
Perhaps but your folly is when you try to pass your opinion off as fact. Especially when I can tell that you havent listened to Oasis or Stone Roses extensively.
Because if you had then you would be able to back your claims up with more than "oh well they suck".
You are certainly more well worded than many of the monosyllabic schitheads that post here (many of which I would love to find them in person and curve stomp their heads into mush).
But like the others, I dont think you've done your homework. Yes, Im calling you out.
"(see: the even less prolific Stone Roses)"
You are entitled to your opinion. But it doesnt make you any less full of schit to me on this particular subject.
In 1992 The Stone Roses released a collection of B-Sides called "Turns Into Stone". This album, even though not consisting of entirely original material for that particular date, holds up extremely well next to their self titled debut.
Much similar to how The Smiths "Hatful Of Hollow" holds up well next to THEIR self titled debut.
Im on the fence about Oasis. But Stone Roses, no they do not suck. Objectively. They do not suck. Give "The Stone Roses" and "Turns Into Stone" another 5 whirls of good listening, and then come back and tell me if you think they suck.
But better yet, if you still think they do, tell me in better detail why you think so...Source(s): nothing
- What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
- AndrewLv 711 months ago
I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that they were ever a band that got any great degree of respect from anybody - either from music fans or from music critics. Their reputation as a wannabe Beatles knockoff was well-embedded, even during the period of time where they were relatively popular. They were hardly innovative, they were never seen as being particularly impressive songwriters, and in terms of musical talent and ability, they were hopelessly average on all fronts. They were essentially a pub band that somehow managed to make it big, they had a few hit songs and attained some fame, but the antics and infighting between the Gallagher brothers always overshadowed their music. Today they are merely a footnote.
- 11 months ago
Most bands have a short peak and then they suck. A band is judged is by how good they were in their prime.
- IamiblisdautrLv 411 months ago
I don't respect that band. But I never did. I like new hip songs. Death metal bands. Not pop rock. I prefer hard metal.