I'm still trying to decide this decades later. What's the Story (Morning Glory) is legitimately a great album, but the rest of this band's resume makes them out to be the British Nickelback. So were these guys a great band that just didn't quite find their groove with any kind of consistency, or were they an awful band that just kind of stumbled into one great album?
Oasis: great band that underperformed, or terrible band that managed to stumble bass ackawards into one masterpiece?
Report Thread
-
-
What is “bass ackawards”? Some sort of fishing trophy?
-
They were a relatively boring band with relatively boring songs. They benefited from showing up post-grunge when pop rock listeners needed something a little less abrasive. Oh, and they reminded people of the Beatles.
-
Neither end of your spectrum. Somewhere in between.
-
Good god does Oasis eat the crap pile.
-
I'd take Queen over Oasis.
-
Definitely maybe is pretty solid. I think their whole catalogue is pretty good. The nickel back comparison is not fair Oasis is legit.
-
Fleetwood Mac > Oasis Hype > Oasis > (lots of bands) > COVID > Nickleback > classic rock other than Fleetwood Mac
-
Blur was better
-
I found Oasis through my college roommate. They have several really solid songs spanning 2 albums. They ended early due to the brothers hating each other, plus the typical booze, drugs, etc.
Even bands like U2, Coldplay, and Foo Fighters that continue to release albums and pack arenas aren’t what they used to be in terms of new music. It’s very rare for a band to have their 6th or 7th album be better than their first 2 or 3. I don’t know the exact Beatles chronology, maybe they had that kind of staying power. Can’t think of any other band to put out more than 5 great albums.
Oasis was really good, way above Nickelback level, but not one of the greatest of all time. -
Suede were better
-
They are no Chumbawamba, but they are pretty good.
-
Rainy Day wrote:
It’s very rare for a band to have their 6th or 7th album be better than their first 2 or 3.
Highway To Hell and Back In Black were AC/DC's 6th and 7th studio albums. But other than that you're mostly correct. -
They are monotonous, all their songs sound the same. They are artistically uninspired. Ultimately they don't leave a dent on the history of music.
A wildly overrated band. -
First time I heard Oasis, the DJ announced they were the new Stone Roses. That was a lot to live up to, and they failed - especially with those annoying and crap "I know a girl called Elsa" rhymes.
They would've been a decent enough pub band, with a handful of decent tunes. -
Liam Gallagher is a first-rate A-hole
-
I didn't like them. Seemed like a band that corporate music wanted to work so MTV put Wonderwall on repeat.
Wonderwall fit the '90s formula of vague lyrics open to broad interpretation, with a British, music family connections twist. Corporate music plays it 5 billion times and people associate it with the soundtrack of their lives at the time. Totally overrated, corporate cram down. Wonderwall was catchy, like herpes. Mmmbop was also catchy, like a song you might want to play again when you are in a good mood. -
Arrogant party animals/skirt chasers who were also pretty darn good songwriters.
-
Wonderwall is catchy but you should listen to Live Forever, Supersonic, Acquiesce, Some might say, Don't look back in anger or even Hindu Times.
-
ya fiarstahtuh wrote:
I didn't like them. Seemed like a band that corporate music wanted to work so MTV put Wonderwall on repeat.
Wonderwall fit the '90s formula of vague lyrics open to broad interpretation, with a British, music family connections twist. Corporate music plays it 5 billion times and people associate it with the soundtrack of their lives at the time. Totally overrated, corporate cram down. Wonderwall was catchy, like herpes. Mmmbop was also catchy, like a song you might want to play again when you are in a good mood.
+1. The only song from that era more overplayed than Wonderwall was "Time Of Your Life." Both of these would make my top ten list of Most Overrated Songs ever.