Well you do live somewhere rather apathetic to Oasis , are you going to do it in Europe , Australia & Japan to be scientific?

I know this , but when they are regually getting songs into the top 10 and at that time into the top 3 and regually getting airplay people know those songs , hence my reference to them being able to sell a few million out of a B sides album. People wanted to hear those songs too.
You are aware that nobody outside the US gives a stuff about Pearl Jam , right?

lmao. People genuinely do not realize this!

Who the hell is Pearl Jam?

I hope your kidding lol.

Yes i plan to travel the world in my search. :ar_15s: In all seriousness though you are correct, i was only talking in the US.
And no im not really aware of how big they are worldwide. Do you know why that is? (referring to why they are not big outside of US) Because i really have no idea of quite a few bands popularity outside of my own country. (being the USofA)

edit: Also I would assume they would be at least semi-popular since there are quite a few other grunge bands that have made it big elsewhere.



Also i am looking now at sales and Ten went Gold in the UK and 6x Plat in Australia. it also went pretty high up in the charts in a plethora of other countries.

Off the back of the grunge movement and when they were at their most hype yes they did sell.
Once Cobain popped his clogs and the likes of Blur , Suede , Oasis , Pulp & Elastica came along their popularity plummeted.

Oh and a gold album in the UK is only 100,000 sales. Oasis debut album sold that amount in the first 4 days of it's release in the UK And 6x platinum in Australia is only 420,000 sales. Ten has sold 12 million copes worldwide , 9.5 million in the U.S. alone which kind of backs up what I said about nobody really caring about them outside the U.S. And this was at the peak of their popularity I imagine the gap is even bigger now.

...Excusing the fact that sales don't mean **** when it comes to music.

We're not talking about quality of music we're talking about popularity.

Nice try though , I knew someone would jump in with a lazy comment like that without bothering to read what was actually being debated

The point of the matter is, the popularity of Pearl Jam outside their native country doesn't matter. We're all very aware you are not a fan of Pearl Jam, thus leading one to the reasonable conclusion that your indication of the sales they have made just runs full circle back to the fact that you don't like them. Pearl Jam>Oasis, and I don't care who sold more.

If you don't care who sold more or who's popular then why get involved at all?

And I wasn't the one who bought up Pearl Jam. Rezz was. I was just replying to what he said.

It bothers me when people pull that bull**** on a band, especially on a forum dedicated to music outside of just the mainstream.

Edit: Yeah, I know. I was just talking about the whole sales points you made. ;)

I was quoting sales figures and talking about their exposure over here after the grunge thing died . I never said anything about personal preference.

You didn't need to. We all know your opinions on Pearl Jam, so there's obviously going to be an inherent bias thrown in whenever you discuss the band.

And like I said. I didn't bring them up Rezz did.

And what inherent bias? I also have said on a number of occasions Oasis output post 1995 is bloody awful. Did you conveniently forget this?

Which is why you gave sales statistics of their debut album.

Do you have the attention span of a goldfish or something?

Rezz was comparing the two bands popularity and I pointed out just how popular Oasis were and that it was probably more than what he gave them credit for THATS ALL.

If you bother to actually read the thread instead of trying to point score you might see this.

Chill out.
No, Rezz was talking about how memorable song names were to people less familiar with the bands he was talking about. You brought up popularity with the sales of their B-sides album.

Edit: Besides, Rezz wasn't comparing Oasis and Pearl Jam's popularity. He was saying just like Oasis, people not in tune with music would have trouble naming Pearl Jam songs.

Oasis and MM maybe but Nirvana and Metallica are not over rated. Those two bands changed popular music and in both cases for the better.

I was a metal head in the mid/late 80's and what metallica did was pioneering, they were a real standout. What they have done since ....and justice for all, hasn't been all that ground breaking as they have slipped into corporate rock mode. I can understand how younger people could say they are over rated as you have not witnessed them in their glory years.

Also unless you are over the age of about 30 I don't think you can really grasp the effect that Nirvana had, not just on popular music but on youth culture itself. There has been nothing that has even come close to their influence since. Now if you were into **** rock their effect probably would have been bad for you, but if you had a poofteenth of good musical taste in you it was a very good and refreshing thing. Once again young people who were not there could be excused for thinking Nirvana were a bunch of guys who could hardly play their instrument and who wrote simple songs that were pretty middle of the road. I don't think their would be an oasis or an modest mouse if nirvana didn't break the mainstreams appetite for bands like G&R and Warrant. Sure there were other bands that were as good as or better than Nirvana in the alternative/punk scene but they didn't break thorough, Nirvana did and that is why their importance is not overrated, if anything I have found that amongst teenages today they are often underrated and written off as simple.

It's never a good idea to talk about the influence Nirvana has had, unless you want to chart into the territories of post-grunge, and trust me, you don't want to.

I posted that Oasis was big sales wise, and that like Pearl Jam people do not actually know much about them. (song names, members names, history, etc...)

Urban was saying that Othat might not be true since Oasis sold so well, but Pearl Jam did not outside of US.

I knew who the Gallagher brothers were before I knew who Oasis were.

Man when I say influence I don't just mean "Gee that band sounds like Nirvana".

Nirvana changed the music industry. It open up the mainstream to all alternative bands "grunge" or not. It made record companies realise that the old formula for detemining the likely hood of success of a band had changed. It made kids think that they didn't have to be a guitar shredding guru to play in a successful rock band. It showed kids that guys in bands didn't have to be mucho, sleezy, ****heads.

You really think there's a difference in quality between Motley Crue & Nickleback?

F*ck it , i'd rather have Motley Crue , at least they were funny.

Not only that, but they had Dr. Feelgood. Nickelback, well, their best album (am I breaking a law by putting "Nickelback" and "best" in the same sentence?) is probably Silver Side Up. Pretty laughable in comparison, actually. :rofl:

Motley Crue's first few records were all pretty solid with the exception of Theatre of pain, which is somewhat debatable on whether it is viewed as a good record. Nickelback is decent but none of it is very memorable or stands out amongst what's out there in music. Then again, what the hell do I know?
:drummer:

I think if people would listen to all of Silver Side Up and forget there previous bias they might actually enjoy it a some degree.

Songs like Hangnail, and Where Do i Hide which actually have pretty decent solo's.

(and yes im ready to be flamed)

meh they are both sh.it , I guess in certain situations sh.it can be funny.....it is still sh.it though.
I was not saying that all rock post nirvana was good, I was just saying that Nirvana did open things up for some very good bands.

metallica and nirvana are bands that were the first of their kind. metallica was too punk for the metal clubs and too metal for the punk clubs, so they combined the two and went big. as far as i know they were the first to do so on such a large scale. in the late 80s nearly all the good hair metal bands went soft and started writing ballads, and thats when nirvana came and kicked the sh*t out of all the puss ballad bands. it was something nobody had ever heard before.

so please understand that those 2 bands were the first of their kind and deserve more respect than you're putting out. modest mouse is also a good band but that's my opinion so i'll keep that to myself.

:afro:

I think you confused Metallica with Nirvana. Nirvana were the ones to mix metal with punk (i.e. grunge) that was what grunge was, a mixture of punk and metal. Metallica was always metal-esque and if memory serves me right.

that line i stole staight from a metallica documentary.:bonkhead:

Whih one?

I think he was talking about the really early days of metallica. Thrash metal was seen by the NWOBHM boys as being quite influenced by punk, due to the extra speed of the drumming and the agression in the vocals.

Nirvana took very little from the metal that was going around in the late eightys, they were just a fuzzed out punk band.

Thing is, Oasis are not overrated. Nobody claims that they are artistic geniuses or anything.

Well, I suppose then you'd start getting into what being 'overrated' actually means and shiz. I don't think being really popular makes you overrated. I mean, for example, why is the original poster saying that Oasis and Modest Mouse are overrated, instead of say Nickelback or something, whose last album sold almost 10 million worldwide? Clearly the focus is not merely on mass popularity but rather on some kind of perceived high status within the music community. As if, "it's alright that the masses eat up this stuff, but why do WE place it so high on the pedestal too?"

Well, I don't think we do. Most would not deny that Gallagher is good at what he does and a great mainstream songster, but few would go so far as to claim Oasis is some kind of group of absolute brilliance especially with the general acknowledgement of the quality (or lack thereof) of the output since Be Here Now (including that album).

C'mon, Oasis make a lot of best bands lists on popular magazines. Difinitely Maybe and Whats the Story Morning Glory make it to a lot of greatest albums ever lists.

You've obviously never met an Oasis fanboy. "Be Here Now is just as good as Definitely Maybe!!!!"
Agh.

EDIT: I just realised this doesn't really argue my point well, but never mind.

Listened to Bleach lately?

Bleach is nothing like metal that was being played in the late 80's. It did have a bit of early sabbath in it. Their is no thrash/death or hair metal in Bleach. You can hear the bleach sound in a lot of metal/stonner rock bands today but there was very little of that going on in1989 or whenever bleach was released.

I'll have to agree with this. Bleach was awesome for its time and it was before they became what they are today. Negative Creep's been covered quite a few times and it's a song that many bands have loved.

I agree that it wasn't a thrash/hair metal type of sound, and did cater more to the heavier stoner side. But they incorparate that type of metal sound in that album. By saying they didn't include it would be false. a fuzzed out punk band would more likely be Mudhoney than Nirvana.

Nonsense , there was loads of bands doing that sort of metal/punk/noise hybrid thing around that time and you don't even have to include the grunge movement either.
Silverfish , Bomb Disneyland , ***e Bikers On Acid , Fudge Tunnel , Leatherface , Helmet , The Melvins and I guess you could include the Butthole Surfers , and stuff like Steve Albini's various bands as well.

Bleach just sounds average compared to most of that stuff , and it was. That's why Nirvana ended up supporting most of those bands at some point.