Jay Z Sticks It To Gallagher, Doubters

[ffrankwhite]

North America LOVES to make British bands huge...jesus,just look at the history of rock.

what????

since the beatles, the stones, and led zep.

only U2, radiohead and oasis have achieved a respectable amount of success in the US. As well as coldplay to a far lesser extent, but they're rubbish anyway.

North America does not "LOVE" to make British bands huge.

he didnt say since the beatles, stones and zep tho did he? his statement was broader. and oh, by the way, The Clash

[Gigger]

I live in the US, the country that pretty much invents culture.

What culture did the US 'invent'?

You're an idiot.

[ffrankwhite]

I live in the US, the country that pretty much invents culture.

What culture did the US 'invent'?

You're an idiot.

i think it was a mis-phrased reference to the americanisation of the world...something that is quite evident. but yes, the poster in question does come off just a tad moronic with that statement.

[Angelica]

Jay-Z > Oasis.

What he said.

[SolidSnake]

I live in the US, the country that pretty much invents culture.

what a fucking moron you really are

Jay Z is one of the most commercialised artists of our time, Oasis are not. Despite this, like Guns N Roses in a very short period they conquered the world, broke all records, and ended up selling 60 million albums.

oh please, all 3 of those artists were signed to major record labels, what do you mean commercialised, they're all 3 about as commercial as you can get..

Oasis have had a far bigger impact on music, than Jay Z.

the comparison is hilarious.

its not a ridiculous comparison at all...why dont you try looking at how many records Jay's sold worldwide. the only difference that puts Oasis just a foot up is the fact that they led a "movement" which wasnt really groundbreaking in any sense...identifiable only in terms of the nationality of the bands in it.

what??? Jay Z is one of the most commercialized artists of our time. with collborations left right and centre, countless re-mixes, to even owning his own Vodka, ffs.

an artist who achieves a copious amount of fame based mostly on those merits cannot be compared to the likes of guns and oasis, who did everything their own way.

musically Jay Z is alright, however if it werent for biggies decline he would have never made it, his debut album reasonable doubt which is decent would have never made it. People even laughed when he released the city is mine in 1997.

his only great album is The Blueprint.

99 problems aside, the black album is patchy.

Edited July 3, 2008 by SolidSnake

[ffrankwhite]

what??? Jay Z is one of the most commercialized artists of our time. with collborations left right and centre, countless re-mixes, to even owning his own Vodka, ffs.

i never denied that, i just said Oasis and Guns were commercial too..

an artist who achieves a copious amount of fame based mostly on those merits

i think you misunderstand commerce. they use him to sell product because he is ALREADY well known, its not how he achieves his fame, he already had the fucking fame, thats why the use him to sell the product...think about it.

cannot be compared to the likes of guns and oasis, who did everything their own way.

yes, that 'way' being to sign to commercial mainstream record labels...

People even laughed when it first came out.

laughed did they? The Source took it pretty seriously, if im not mistaken it got 5 mics...or 4 and a half. as for the whole thing about Biggies decline, yeah, you're right about that and i've stated that in a previous post in this thread

EDIT: nice one on the edit there

Edited July 3, 2008 by ffrankwhite

[Gigger]

Funny how when a band can't break the US, their fans pretend like the US doesn't matter. You are the idiot if you don't think Oasis don't wish they weren't bigger in the over here. - Fact

Not sure that people are dismissing Oasis in North America because they weren't huge here.

North America LOVES to make British bands huge...jesus,just look at the history of rock.

North America just didn't think they were all that good.They were viewed as half-baked Beatle/Lennon wannabes.

Not dissing the band,but that's the way it went down over here.Most people weren't all that impressed.

They did break the US though didn't they? You simply seem to ignore it. 4 million album sales on Morning Glory. 1 million on Be Here Now. Both top 10 albums. That IS breaking the US. The last album peaked at 12 in the album charts and that was 7-8 years after they promoted themselves across the pond. They broke the US. They just aren't as big in the States as they are globally but for a brief moment in the States they did 'crack' it.

And for the record they simply didn't care about the US. They tried to tour briefly in the Morning Glory years but they couldn't cope with it and it all fell apart when Liam and Noel fell out over something or other. They don't promote their albums in the States. It's hard work and they can't be bothered with it because they don't need to. They sell as many albums worldwide as most bands sell singles. Now, Robbie Williams he's a different story because he did try and crack the States several times but he never had a platinum album - unlike Oasis.

North America's big cities still love the band. They were selling out gigs on the Don't Believe the Truth tour in places like MSG in seconds. Again people just chose to ignore it.

The US used to love UK bands but then it became saturated with crap - Beatles, Stones, Zep, Clash, Radohead - that's it as far as UK bands who broke the States. You always miss half our best stuff anyway - Joy Division, The Kinks. Hey you even miss some of your best stuff, Hendrix for example.

It's all cyclical but the state of the music industry in the UK is far superior at the moment. That's proven by how little US music is being exported successfully to the UK (and Europe) at the moment (and our industry is easy to crack) whilst our little island is exporting more than it should: Amy Winehouse, Corrine Bailey Rae, Leona Lewis, Duffy, Adele, Radiohead, Coldplay. Ok some of it's shit but it's all British and it's being eaten up in the US at the moment.

The US 'invent culture' though, so what do I know. What culture's that? MacDonald's, Starbucks and gun crime? Yeah, thanks for that.

Edited July 3, 2008 by Gigger

[SolidSnake]

i think you misunderstand commerce. they use him to sell product because he is ALREADY well known its not how he achieves his fame, he already had the fucking fame, thats why the use him to sell the product...think about it.

yes, hence him being one of the most commercialized artist of our time, the objective of commerce is to turn everything into an object or a service to generate mass profit. Jay Z does this better than most.

yes, that 'way' being to sign to commercial mainstream record labels...

the industry itself is obviously commercial, this has nothing to do with the intentions and ethos of an artist.

laughed did they? The Source took it pretty seriously, if im not mistaken it got 5 mics...or 4 and a half. as for the whole thing about Biggies decline, yeah, you're right about that and i've stated that in a previous post in this thread

EDIT: nice one on the edit there

cheers!

Funny how when a band can't break the US, their fans pretend like the US doesn't matter. You are the idiot if you don't think Oasis don't wish they weren't bigger in the over here. - Fact

Not sure that people are dismissing Oasis in North America because they weren't huge here.

North America LOVES to make British bands huge...jesus,just look at the history of rock.

North America just didn't think they were all that good.They were viewed as half-baked Beatle/Lennon wannabes.

Not dissing the band,but that's the way it went down over here.Most people weren't all that impressed.

They did break the US though

yes they did, they've sold around 10million albums in the US.

Funny how when a band can't break the US, their fans pretend like the US doesn't matter. You are the idiot if you don't think Oasis don't wish they weren't bigger in the over here. - Fact

Not sure that people are dismissing Oasis in North America because they weren't huge here.

North America LOVES to make British bands huge...jesus,just look at the history of rock.

North America just didn't think they were all that good.They were viewed as half-baked Beatle/Lennon wannabes.

Not dissing the band,but that's the way it went down over here.Most people weren't all that impressed.

They did break the US though didn't they? You simply seem to ignore it. 4 million album sales on Morning Glory. 1 million on Be Here Now. Both top 10 albums. That IS breaking the US. The last album peaked at 12 in the album charts and that was 7-8 years after they promoted themselves across the pond. They broke the US. They just aren't as big in the States as they are globally but for a brief moment in the States they did 'crack' it.

And for the record they simply didn't care about the US. They tried to tour briefly in the Morning Glory years but they couldn't cope with it and it all fell apart when Liam and Noel fell out over something or other. They don't promote their albums in the States. It's hard work and they can't be bothered with it because they don't need to. They sell as many albums worldwide as most bands sell singles. Now, Robbie Williams he's a different story because he did try and crack the States several times but he never had a platinum album - unlike Oasis.

North America's big cities still love the band. They were selling out gigs on the Don't Believe the Truth tour in places like MSG in seconds. Again people just chose to ignore it.

The US used to love UK bands but then it became saturated with crap - Beatles, Stones, Zep, Clash, Radohead - that's it as far as UK bands who broke the States. You always miss half our best stuff anyway - Joy Division, The Kinks. Hey you even miss some of your best stuff, Hendrix for example.

It's all cyclical but the state of the music industry in the UK is far superior at the moment. That's proven by how little US music is being exported successfully to the UK (and Europe) at the moment (and our industry is easy to crack) whilst our little island is exporting more than it should: Amy Winehouse, Corrine Bailey Rae, Leona Lewis, Duffy, Adele, Radiohead, Coldplay. Ok some of it's shit but it's all British and it's being eaten up in the US at the moment.

The US 'invent culture' though, so what do I know. What culture's that? MacDonald's, Starbucks and gun crime? Yeah, thanks for that.

Brilliant post well done.

[ffrankwhite]

yes, hence him being one of the most commercialized artist of our time, the objective of commerce is to turn everything into an object or a service to generate mass profit. Jay Z does this better than most.

right but you said his fame was mostly cuz of that, which its not, he's known as Jay Z the rapper not Jay Z who sells vodka.

the industry itself is obviously commercial, this has nothing to do with the intentions and ethos of an artist

right but there are bands that operate outside of or against that machinery...Minor Threat, Fugazi, Dead Kennedys...not fucking Oasis and Guns n Roses, dont be ridiculous...they're as commercial as it gets. Guns n Oasis have ethos outside of the commercial aspect of the industry? give me a fucking break...

Edited July 3, 2008 by ffrankwhite

[SolidSnake]

yes, hence him being one of the most commercialized artist of our time, the objective of commerce is to turn everything into an object or a service to generate mass profit. Jay Z does this better than most.

right but you said his fame was mostly cuz of that, which its not, he's known as Jay Z the rapper not Jay Z who sells vodka.

the industry itself is obviously commercial, this has nothing to do with the intentions and ethos of an artist

right but there are bands that operate outside of or against that machinery...Minor Threat, Fugazi, Dead Kennedys...not fucking Oasis and Guns n Roses, dont be ridiculous...they're as commercial as it gets.

im not being ridiculous, im "trying" to compare Oasis to Jay Z. Which is rubbish on so many levels.

im not trying to compare Oasis to the likes of GG Allin FFS.

the average joe on the street will remember Jay Z for his remix's and collaborations with other artists, hence me using the word "mostly" and not "soley".

[SolidSnake]

Jay Z boosts Oasis Sales, BBC

The star has helped Oasis's Wonderwall return to the charts after he mockingly opened his set with the 1995 single, mid-week figures also suggest.

Huge exposure

Jay-Z chose to cover an Oasis track after Noel Gallagher told the BBC that he was "wrong" for the three-day Somerset festival.

The original version has experienced a huge sales boost, with the single challenging for a place in the Top 100.

What's The Story (Morning Glory), the album it originally appeared on, has seen sales increase of over 200%, while their compilation Stop the Clocks has had a week on week increase of over 140%.

Noel Gallagher said he thought Jay-Z was wrong for Glastonbury

HAHAHAHAHAHA.

Noel Gallagher 1

Jay Z 0

[ffrankwhite]

yes, hence him being one of the most commercialized artist of our time, the objective of commerce is to turn everything into an object or a service to generate mass profit. Jay Z does this better than most.

right but you said his fame was mostly cuz of that, which its not, he's known as Jay Z the rapper not Jay Z who sells vodka.

the industry itself is obviously commercial, this has nothing to do with the intentions and ethos of an artist

right but there are bands that operate outside of or against that machinery...Minor Threat, Fugazi, Dead Kennedys...not fucking Oasis and Guns n Roses, dont be ridiculous...they're as commercial as it gets.

im not being ridiculous, im "trying" to compare Oasis to Jay Z. Which is rubbish on so many levels.

im not trying to compare Oasis to the likes of GG Allin FFS.

the average joe on the street will remember Jay Z for his remix's and collaborations with other artists, hence me using the word "mostly" and not "soley".

i dont see whats ridiculous about it, they're both pretty fuckin big mainstream artists, roughly the same era, both signed to commercial record labels, both considered pretty seminal within their genre, both sell millions of records...hows it rubbish, its rubbish because of your perception of the average Joe and what he'll remember? well thats your opinion im afraid...i bet'cha most kids in high school, if you wait out in front, pull em over, aside from maybe a charge for soliciting you'll get more of them having heard of Jay Z than Oasis. if you actually look through my posts here im in agreement with you, i actually prefer Oasis, consider them more important, the whole shebang but this shit you're rockin' about how the two arent even comporable is just silly, they are more than comparable.

i tell ya whats ridiculous, likening an Oasis to Jay Z comparison to an Oasis to GG comparison, THAT is whats fucking ridiculous...

Edited July 3, 2008 by ffrankwhite

[SolidSnake]

yes, hence him being one of the most commercialized artist of our time, the objective of commerce is to turn everything into an object or a service to generate mass profit. Jay Z does this better than most.

right but you said his fame was mostly cuz of that, which its not, he's known as Jay Z the rapper not Jay Z who sells vodka.

the industry itself is obviously commercial, this has nothing to do with the intentions and ethos of an artist

right but there are bands that operate outside of or against that machinery...Minor Threat, Fugazi, Dead Kennedys...not fucking Oasis and Guns n Roses, dont be ridiculous...they're as commercial as it gets.

im not being ridiculous, im "trying" to compare Oasis to Jay Z. Which is rubbish on so many levels.

im not trying to compare Oasis to the likes of GG Allin FFS.

the average joe on the street will remember Jay Z for his remix's and collaborations with other artists, hence me using the word "mostly" and not "soley".

i dont see whats ridiculous about it, they're both pretty fuckin big mainstream artists, roughly the same era, both signed to commercial record labels, both considered pretty seminal within their genre, both sell millions of records...hows it rubbish, its rubbish because of your perception of the average Joe and what he'll remember? well thats your opinion im afraid...i bet'cha most kids in high school, if you wait out in front, pull em over, aside from maybe a charge for soliciting you'll get more of them having heard of Jay Z than Oasis. if you actually look through my posts here im in agreement with you, i actually prefer Oasis, consider them more important, the whole shebang but this shit you're rockin' about how the two arent even comporable is just silly, they are more than comparable.

i tell ya whats ridiculous, likening an Oasis to Jay Z comparison to an Oasis to GG comparison, THAT is whats fucking ridiculous...

the mention of gg allin and oasis was a ridiculous spin off aimed at your mentions of fugazi etc which I see pointless as I do acknowledge that both Jay Z and Oasis and Guns are all massive selling artists/bands

all successful bands and artists have signed record deals. So I dont see where you're coming from with that point?????????

Musically Oasis and Jay z are both extremely different which is why I've said the comparison is ridiculous. If you watch a Jay Z music video he depicts a superstar cigar smoking jet set lifestyle. Musically they're both at opposite ends of the spectrum.

football players sign to football clubs and become sucessfull, should I compare a football player to noel gallagher? sure both Jay Z and Oasis make music, but you get my point, they're beliefs, personality and pretty much everything completely differ.

as seen by Noel's comments.

which fair enough he might have point?

take download festival for example, should britney spears play there? NO.

I've heart from various people at glasto that Jay Z ran out of steam half way through his set, and people left quickly. Just because it looks good on the TV doesnt actually mean it was. and I myself thought he was average, just as Oasis were in 2004.

[ffrankwhite]

the mention of gg allin and oasis was a ridiculous spin off aimed at your mentions of fugazi etc which I see pointless as I do acknowledge that both Jay Z and Oasis and Guns are all massive selling artists/bands

well it wasnt pointless because their mention was as an example of bands with an ethos that runs contrary to explicit commerciality (is that even a word? ). the entire point was you were criticising Jay Z for being commercial and then lauding Guns n Roses and Oasis as examples to the contrary with is quite simply hilairious. i mean really, Guns n Roses, this is a band that has aligned itself with movies like Terminator 2 and had a pretty big amount of corporate sponsorship, how in the fuck are you gonna keep a straight face and tell me that they aint commercial and Jay Z is?!?!

all successful bands and artists have signed record deals. So I dont see where you're coming from with that point?????????

i would've thought the point is quite blatantly obvious. all these bands signed to major record labels to some degree can be called commercial bands, mainstream bands, i mean seriously, lets be fucking real here and cut the bullshit. certain bands, bands like Nirvana, The Clash, Pearl Jam to some degree (and i dont even like PJ) have, despite signing to major record labels, done things that sort of...distance themselves from the totally whorish or what they percieved to be the totally whorish aspects of signing to a major mainstream record label (such as The Clash releasing triple albums and pricing them only at the price of a normal album so the kids could afford it which put themselves in the position of not making any fucking profit, any turnover as a band until the last year of their i think it was 9 year career). Now bands like Guns n Roses and Oasis can't even be put in that category with PJ, The Clash etc as being the lesser commercial of the mainstream major record label bands, they fit pretty fucking neatly alongside people like Jay Z. quite frankly, i dont really see whats wrong with it, if its what they wanna do, what they CHOOSE to do but please, dont gimme that rage against the machine, on-their-own-terms, non-commercial shit...you dont get much more commercial than bands like GnR.

Musically Oasis and Jay z are both extremely different which is why I've said the comparison is ridiculous. If you watch a Jay Z music video he depicts a superstar cigar smoking jet set lifestyle. Musically they're both at opposite ends of the spectrum.

yeah but the points that have been raised so far have been relative to commerciality, to their effect on the industry, to their record sales, of course they're different, that much is granted but then, thats what comparison is about isnt it, if you think about it? comparing and contrasting the differences, it'd be sort of a pointless exercise or at least an extremely unchallenging one if they were identical or full of glaring similarities. you weren't initially saying the comparison was ridiculous because the music is so different, you were saying it because you were implying (and in other places flat out stating) that Jay Z was less important in some way to the history of music and less relevant, you're starting to come off like you're backpedalling now.

football players sign to football clubs and become sucessfull, should I compare a football player to noel gallagher?

no but you could have a go at comparing a football player to another sportsman, its not impossible...say for instance if you were comparing Muhammad Ali to....i dunno, im not interested in no other sport than boxing but lets just pick one, i dunno, Michael Jordan, you could compare how they performed, their records or whatever, their place in history, their achievements in their field, how consistent they were, any number of things. same applies with Oasis and Jay Z, its not that huge a stretch..

take download festival for example, should britney spears play there? NO.

why not? its all music isnt it, all entertainment...just cuz i dont like it dont mean other people dont. dont believe in being exclusive and elitist, throw everyone into the mix, why the fuck not?

I've heart from various people at glasto that Jay Z ran out of steam half way through his set, and people left quickly

oftentimes in these sorts of cases i find that peoples opinions follow through on their predudices...whatever, a lot of people enjoyed it and thats whats important.

[SolidSnake]

look your main argument here is that both Jay Z and Oasis are commercial artists.

I agree, there's really no need to argue.

however what im saying is that Jay Z is much more commercialized than Oasis, and it isnt just about the "sound"

thats all im saying, which is pretty much fact.

Edited July 3, 2008 by SolidSnake

[ffrankwhite]

look your main argument here is that both Jay Z and Oasis are commercial artists.

I agree, there's really no need to argue.

however what im saying is that Jay Z is much more commercialized than Oasis, and it isnt just about the "sound"

thats all im saying, which is pretty much fact.

i could pretty much agree with that yeah but really, at this point in the argument, its all gotten a little petty really hasn't it? a lesser/morer thing...my point is/was they're none too dissimilar. i do see what you mean but...i think people should, or at least i like to endeavour to not labor under certain predudices, especially when they cloud the clarity of my opinions. still, opinions opinions, i've got mine, you've got yours

Edited July 3, 2008 by ffrankwhite

[JeanGenie]

Oasis are bigger, better than Jay Z no denying that.

And to the poor fella that thinks culture was invented in the usa

no country is actually further away from "inventing" (what a stupid word) any sort of culture.

[Zint]

North America LOVES to make British bands huge...jesus,just look at the history of rock.

and ffrank said:

true (im racking my brains here to think of the last british band north america made huge...the clash is all that are occuring to me at the minute)

The Clash weren't exactly huge,but Maiden,Priest,Ozzy solo,to mention a few..were pretty damn big.

But that was a long time ago and the climate in music has changed quite considerably since those days

Yeah,but we're talking about Oasis here right??The band that sounds very "a long time ago".

a large part of the reason that so many British bands made it huge in those days was that (or at least i get the impression) America didnt really appreciate what they had with Rock n Roll and more specifically sorta rhythm n blues type stuff. but anyway, thats an entirely different discussion.

Woa...don't think so.

Elvis,Beach Boys,Janis Joplin,Doors,Alice Cooper,Aerosmith,Van Halen,Kiss,Eagles,Fleetwood Mac,Motley Crue,Michael Jackson,Rush,Guns n Roses just to name a few,the list is endless really.Huge fucking artists in North America..I don't necessarily care for all those bands but man...North America showed massive "appreciation" for them.

Fuck man... look at one example in country Garth Brooks,that guy went nuclear when he hit the scene.

And as for R+B...I can assure you it's had it's glory day on the radio airwaves...but like you said,times change.

i just think its really unfair that Oasis suffered as much as they did from that whole thing

What whole thing??...proclaiming themselves better than the Beatles and the best band ever on the face of the planet?

It's absurd (and a clever marketing scheme for those who care to take the blinders off and see it).

But it backfired,because North America wasn't having it....not for the long haul anyway...once people started to realize it wasn't true.

Brother's Gallagher were (still are) making more headlines for their Pete Doherty/Amy Winehouse style of crap (hype) shenanigans than they were (still are) for their music.

[ffrankwhite]

Woa...don't think so.

Elvis,Beach Boys,Janis Joplin,Doors,Alice Cooper,Aerosmith,Van Halen,Kiss,Eagles,Fleetwood Mac,Motley Crue,Michael Jackson,Rush,Guns n Roses just to name a few,the list is endless really.

i wasnt being very clear there, what i meant was that sort of late 50s/early 60s period where rock n roll was kinda spluttering and it took The Stones/The Beatles/The Who et al to kinda remind America what a good thing it was on to. shoulda been a bit clearer about what i meant by "in those days".

Edited July 3, 2008 by ffrankwhite

[Zint]

Woa...don't think so.

Elvis,Beach Boys,Janis Joplin,Doors,Alice Cooper,Aerosmith,Van Halen,Kiss,Eagles,Fleetwood Mac,Motley Crue,Michael Jackson,Rush,Guns n Roses just to name a few,the list is endless really.

i wasnt being very clear there, what i meant was that sort of late 50s/early 60s period where rock n roll was kinda spluttering and it took The Stones/The Beatles/The Who et al to kinda remind America what a good thing it was on to.

That was definitely an era of "the man" (so to speak) trying to homogenize rock and make it a marketable commodity that was user friendly to parents' faux morality play...and more importantly,their money.

[Gigger]

What whole thing??...proclaiming themselves better than the Beatles and the best band ever on the face of the planet?

It's absurd

You gotta love that North American appreciation of irony. The bigger than Beatles is the most ridiculous accusation to make at the band ever. It was OBVIOUSLY irony. You're an idiot if you think otherwise - plain and simple. You won't find any Beatles fanatics more than Noel and Liam and to even levy the accusation at them that they seriously believed they were bigger than the Beatles is ridiculous. Guess you just didn't get the Manc sense of humour so more fool you.

Fact is... Oasis did crack America. A 4x platinum album. Fact. I've just looked it up. Jay Z has only ever had 1 album go more than 4x platinum. Fact. So Oasis who "never cracked" the States still had an album sell nearly as many records as rap's Hova.

But the reason Oasis never made it as big in the States as elsewhere is not because the North American audience called them out and realised it was all bravado. That's bullshit revisionist history.

The reason they didn't blow huge in the States is the same as The Kinks. Firstly, they didn't tour/promote hard enough (the Kinks because of a ban and Oasis cos of laziness/foolishness). And secondly because of the nature of the band. Oasis like The Kinks wrote about British culture. The Kinks did it in a slightly more subtle 'quaint' (for want of a better word) way. Oasis did it in a more in your face British working class way. Songs with simple themes that resonated with a certain demographic in the UK. That's why they are huge here and that's why it never resonated as much in the States. But hey, they still sold 10 million records State side. Not bad for a Beatles cover band.

Edited July 3, 2008 by Gigger

[SolidSnake]

North America LOVES to make British bands huge...jesus,just look at the history of rock.

and ffrank said:

true (im racking my brains here to think of the last british band north america made huge...the clash is all that are occuring to me at the minute)

The Clash weren't exactly huge,but Maiden,Priest,Ozzy solo,to mention a few..were pretty damn big.

But that was a long time ago and the climate in music has changed quite considerably since those days

Yeah,but we're talking about Oasis here right??The band that sounds very "a long time ago".

a large part of the reason that so many British bands made it huge in those days was that (or at least i get the impression) America didnt really appreciate what they had with Rock n Roll and more specifically sorta rhythm n blues type stuff. but anyway, thats an entirely different discussion.

Woa...don't think so.

Elvis,Beach Boys,Janis Joplin,Doors,Alice Cooper,Aerosmith,Van Halen,Kiss,Eagles,Fleetwood Mac,Motley Crue,Michael Jackson,Rush,Guns n Roses just to name a few,the list is endless really.Huge fucking artists in North America..I don't necessarily care for all those bands but man...North America showed massive "appreciation" for them.

Fuck man... look at one example in country Garth Brooks,that guy went nuclear when he hit the scene.

And as for R+B...I can assure you it's had it's glory day on the radio airwaves...but like you said,times change.

i just think its really unfair that Oasis suffered as much as they did from that whole thing

What whole thing??...proclaiming themselves better than the Beatles and the best band ever on the face of the planet?

It's absurd (and a clever marketing scheme for those who care to take the blinders off and see it).

But it backfired,because North America wasn't having it....not for the long haul anyway...once people started to realize it wasn't true.

Brother's Gallagher were (still are) making more headlines for their Pete Doherty/Amy Winehouse style of crap (hype) shenanigans than they were (still are) for their music.

When oasis proclaimed themselves bigger than the beatles, they were taking you for a long long ride, and it worked sweetly.

it's called winding you up, taking the piss out of you.

I love it when americans completely fail to understand the british psyche.

[ffrankwhite]

You gotta love that North American appreciation of irony. The bigger than Beatles is the most ridiculous accusation to make at the band ever. It was OBVIOUSLY irony. You're an idiot if you think otherwise - plain and simple.

somehow i dont think irony is Liams strong suit either. dont get me wrong, i dont think he's stupid or anything, far from it but i get the impression it was just an offhand mouthy comment, i dont think it was anymore seriously meant nor was it a sort of calculated piece of British comedy. the whole quote if i recall was centered around the whole Lennon "bigger than Jesus" thing and Liam said yeah they were and so are we and we're gonna be bigger than the beatles...or something to that effect...thats very approximate.

[Zint]

When oasis proclaimed themselves bigger than the beatles, they were taking you for a long long ride, and it worked sweetly.

really??...it worked sweetly??

That's why you're here defending why Oasis aren't huge in North America?

it's called winding you up, taking the piss out of you.

It's called marketing hype,bands who aren't really all that are masters at it.

I love it when americans completely fail to understand the british psyche.

I love it when Brits fail to understand that everyone across the pond are not Americans.

[Gigger]

You gotta love that North American appreciation of irony. The bigger than Beatles is the most ridiculous accusation to make at the band ever. It was OBVIOUSLY irony. You're an idiot if you think otherwise - plain and simple.

somehow i dont think irony is Liams strong suit either. dont get me wrong, i dont think he's stupid or anything, far from it but i get the impression it was just an offhand mouthy comment, i dont think it was anymore seriously meant nor was it a sort of calculated piece of British comedy. the whole quote if i recall was centered around the whole Lennon "bigger than Jesus" thing and Liam said yeah they were and so are we and we're gonna be bigger than the beatles...or something to that effect...thats very approximate.

"Lennon was right. And we are bigger than Jesus. We will be as big as the Beatles, if not bigger." Irony mixed with Manc bravado. Anyone who thinks it was a serious comment is an idiot. And anyway? Do we not like rock stars being full of bravado all of a sudden? Do we prefer our front men to be shrinking violets? (that's aimed less at you frank than some others in this thread)

Personally I prefer Noel's take on it: "We're not arrogant, we just believe we're the best band in the world." Now that is irony.

Edited July 3, 2008 by Gigger