The person that I quoted said that they feel sorry for the people who like Britney.

But more people own a Britney album than an Oasis album.

I didn't say anything about credibility, but Britney will continue to outsell them.

They've been going for much longer than Britney and she's 33,000,000 infront of them and still going.

 

and we have to say that she has sold more than

 

Coldplay,oasis,blur,radiohead,foo fighters,killers,sex pistols,the who,T-Rex,artic monkeys,the smiths,stone roses and many more

 

she is far better than these bands correct ?

 

why don't you cut to the chase and admit that's what you really implying.

and we have to say that she has sold more than

 

Coldplay,oasis,blur,radiohead,foo fighters,killers,sex pistols,the who,T-Rex,artic monkeys,the smiths,stone roses and many more

 

she is far better than these bands correct ?

 

why don't you cut to the chase and admit that's what you really implying.

 

I don't think that's what she was implying AT ALL! And anyway she was just measuring up Oasis compared to Britney seeing as you bought Britney into the equation (Even though you didn't really need too -_-) and that this thread is about Oasis, she just did their sales.

 

And did anyone actually say she was better than any of those names you mentioned? No. Even though I personally think she is because that's just MY opinion and Taste. Athough The Killers are quite close! But enough about that I rave about them in their own AF's anyway so I don't need to do it here as well! -_-

Again, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that now even the people that have given Oasis undeserved universal praise for last decade are coming round to the fact they're a shadow of what they once were...

 

do you know that Morning glory got mostly panned around the world initially ? champagne supernova got slagged off ?

 

what have you got to say about that ? are we to go with a one man review of an album?

 

when yet most people place morning glory as one of the best albums ever or of the 90's

Edited October 14, 200816 yr by Jez

I don't think that's what she was implying AT ALL! And anyway she was just measuring up Oasis compared to Britney seeing as you bought Britney into the equation (Even though you didn't really need too -_-) and that this thread is about Oasis, she just did their sales.

 

And did anyone actually say she was better than any of those names you mentioned? No. Even though I personally think she is because that's just MY opinion and Taste. Athough The Killers are quite close! But enough about that I rave about them in their own AF's anyway so I don't need to do it here as well! -_-

 

she said more people by britney than oasis,

 

you can go in circles mate, but we all really know what her intention was.

she said more people by britney than oasis,

 

you can go in circles mate, but we all really know what her intention was.

 

Well she had the sales to back it up :wacko: so obviously more people DO buy Britney.

 

And when you say "we ALL really know"... don't you mean just "YOU THINK you really know"

Well she had the sales to back it up :wacko: so obviously more people DO buy Britney.

 

And when you say "we ALL really know"... don't you mean just "YOU THINK you really know"

 

i have read a few posts prior to mine that try to analyze her thesis... by saying "does that mean britney is more credible?" and so on.

 

It's not saying she is more credible it's just stating that more people are interested and buy Britney's albums and singles etc... where does it state that we have said she is more credible?

It's not saying she is more credible it's just stating that more people are interested and buy Britney's albums and singles etc... where does it state that we have said she is more credible?

look into the contex of this and not just with one eye open.

look into the contex of this and not just with one eye open.

LOL

You only have to look at their best of to see how irrelevent they've become. Something like 78% of the songs from the first 33% of their carreer. Surely no one can deny that isn't embarassing? :lol:

 

Although I'm sure some will try! -_-

You only have to look at their best of to see how irrelevent they've become. Something like 78% of the songs from the first 33% of their carreer. Surely no one can deny that isn't embarassing? :lol:

 

Although I'm sure some will try! -_-

 

I'm really confused with this thread because of the hate for oasis. In my opinion, an act like oasis just completely dominated an era in music and wrote some of the greatest british songs ever. The nineties were their finest hour but that doesnt mean they shouldnt release new music.

 

Whoever said oasis needed to dominate the charts like they used to? Its pretty obvious that plenty of people still like their music and even if its just die hard fans, so what, their fans are obviously quite a huge market.

 

Tell ya what some of you guys are - "chart snobs", its my new label.

Edited October 14, 200816 yr by Robintime11

You only have to look at their best of to see how irrelevent they've become. Something like 78% of the songs from the first 33% of their carreer. Surely no one can deny that isn't embarassing? :lol:

 

Although I'm sure some will try! -_-

 

 

it's a best of we all know the first albums hold a high place amongst the masses.

 

but you can't keep comparing later albums with the older ones !! anything would sound $h!t if you did!! it's just unfair!

 

you have to look at each album in it's contex and own right..

 

 

^^ thats so true.

it's a best of we all know the first albums hold a high place amongst the masses.

 

but you can't keep comparing later albums with the older ones !! anything would sound $h!t if you did!! it's just unfair!

 

you have to look at each album in it's contex and own right..

 

It's something that will always happen though. Regardless of whether you think it's unfair or not, people are still going to compare it to their "better" stuff. It's something that happens with most (if not ALL) acts.

It's something that will always happen though. Regardless of whether you think it's unfair or not, people are still going to compare it to their "better" stuff. It's something that happens with most (if not ALL) acts.

 

for sure it does... Oasis raised the bar so high for them selves that no matter what they do will seem weaker.

 

It was a culture they bought not just the music,

 

and the memories of those albums have an effect on their merits... cool britainia etc Noel going to #11 downing street etc etc.

 

but to just sit down and say oh everything is $h!t after their first few albums is just a lazy musical analysis....i look at it as a good thing as this clearly means they have made 2 f***ing classical, albums that even if you put agaisnt other acts best stuff wouldn't even come close... but if you took away the first 2 albums, they would be more accepted as they wouldn't have a high barrier to break.

 

 

it's a best of we all know the first albums hold a high place amongst the masses.

 

but you can't keep comparing later albums with the older ones !! anything would sound $h!t if you did!! it's just unfair!

 

you have to look at each album in it's contex and own right..

 

Even Oasis have admitted that they will probably never be able to make an album that will out shine Definitely Maybe and What's the story... Dig out your soul got received positive reviews from various newspapers and magazines. I'm sure it won't sell as well at the others due to the credit crunch ;)

and i would say alot of bands first work turns out the best.. because they don't have any pressure... media camping outside their homes, anything to compare with.

 

Oasis get it hard with the media and casual buyers... as they are an easy target unlike coldplay,u2

 

i personally think Coldplay come out with the same music..and by far their first album was their best, X&Y was pretty p*** poor (IMO).. if you compare it with parachuttes.. but in it's own right with an open mind it isn't that bad.

Edited October 14, 200816 yr by Jez

I'm really confused with this thread because of the hate for oasis. In my opinion, an act like oasis just completely dominated an era in music and wrote some of the greatest british songs ever. The nineties were their finest hour but that doesnt mean they shouldnt release new music.

 

Whoever said oasis needed to dominate the charts like they used to? Its pretty obvious that plenty of people still like their music and even if its just die hard fans, so what, their fans are obviously quite a huge market.

 

Tell ya what some of you guys are - "chart snobs", its my new label.

:mellow:

 

I'm only pouring hate on Oasis because I feel they deserve it. Yes, their first two albums were great and yes they dominated a chart era, but not any more. Compare them to other acts from that time that were pretty big. You had Pulp who knew when to stop, you have Blur and Radiohead who kept making brilliant and innovative albums which sounded nothing like what they;d made before (I don't even like Radiohead by the way, I vastly prefer Oasis but I've more respect for Radiohead) whereas Oasis haven't ever really progressed their sound, when they do ('Importance...', 'Songbird') it's brilliant but they just don't do it often enough. Half of their material from 'Be Here Now' sounded like cast-offs from earlier albums, half of their material now still does!

 

I assume next time Westlife release an album and they get their usual slating you'll be quick to defend them afterall (to quote yourself) Its pretty obvious that plenty of people still like their music and even if its just die hard fans, so what, their fans are obviously quite a huge market.

 

Edited October 14, 200816 yr by RabbitFurCoat

for sure it does... Oasis raised the bar so high for them selves that no matter what they do will seem weaker.

That's complete bollocks. Many people regard Coldplay's first two albums as masterpieces containing some great British anthems (sound familiar?) they then came back with a third album which was a bit drab in comparison and never really recieved the same acclaim of the first ones (sound familiar) but instead of plodding along with the same old $h!te they took enough time out, working with different people, refining their style to come back with an album as good as (and I think better) than their first two. It CAN be done! Blur did it with 'Blur' and '13' after 'Parklife' and 'The Great Escape'.

:mellow:

 

I'm only pouring hate on Oasis because I feel they deserve it. Yes, their first two albums were great and yes they dominated a chart era, but not any more. Compare them to other acts from that time that were pretty big. You had Pulp who knew when to stop, you have Blur and Radiohead who kept making brilliant and innovative albums which sounded nothing like what they;d made before (I don't even like Radiohead by the way, I vastly prefer Oasis but I've more respect for Radiohead) whereas Oasis haven't ever really progressed their sound, when they do ('Importance...', 'Songbird') it's brilliant but they just don't do it often enough. Half of their material from 'Be Here Now' sounded like cast-offs from earlier albums, half of their material now still does!

 

I assume next time Westlife release an album and they get their usual slating you'll be quick to defend them afterall (to quote yourself) Its pretty obvious that plenty of people still like their music and even if its just die hard fans, so what, their fans are obviously quite a huge market.

 

I love westlife.