Loading AI tools
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Oasis (band). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 9 |
This is from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_rock
...Dubbed "Britpop" by the media, this movement represented by Oasis, Blur, Suede, and Pulp was the British equivalent of the grunge explosion,[27] for not only did it propel alternative rock to the top of the charts in its respective country, but it centered it on a revitalization of British youth culture celebrated as "Cool Britannia". In 1995 the Britpop phenomenon culminated in a rivalry between its two chief groups, Oasis and Blur, symbolized by their release of competing singles on the same day. Blur won "The Battle of Britpop", but Oasis' second album (What's the Story) Morning Glory? went on to become the third best-selling album in Britain's history;[31] Oasis also had major commercial success overseas and even charted hits in the United States...
Oasis at one time was (and some may argue still are) Alternative Rock, and were Indie (Creation was an independent label before Sony bought into it) so the Genre section must only represent present musical genre's , or should it include the past???
Please could someone clear this up. All the best JohnOasis321.
Oasis were considered to be Alternative Rock when they first appeared. No doubt some editors thing they are too mainstream or they have "sold out" or whatever. But most sources list them as alternative rock, eg All Music Guide, and WP's own Alternative Rock page. JW 13:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- In the UK, Oasis are just rock. It's in the US that they are considered alternative. They haven't changed their sound, ask any critic of the band so they are hardly sell-outs.--Play Brian Moore 16:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- No, in the UK, they are considered alternative/indie more so in the US, because most Americans aren't aware that Oasis were on an indie label or are even familiar with Britpop. Nevertheless, they are the most traditionalist of the major Britpop bands. WesleyDodds 00:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- In the UK, they are considered Rock or Britpop or maybe indie. They are not considered alternative in Britain rather only by America e.g. All Music Guide. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fenian Swine (talk • contribs) 11:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC).
- "Indie" is the UK term for alternative rock. WesleyDodds 12:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- No. "Indie" is derived from independent label i.e. a band that was not on a major label. Nowadays, indie has become more of a sound. Alternative is a sound. You could describe Nirvana as alternative but you couldn't describe them as indie anymore because indie is a sound. In totalilty, indie and alternative are not the same thing.--Play Brian Moore 23:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- That's one of the meanings for "indie", and Oasis certainly don't fit that criteria anymore. The thing is in the UK "indie" can also mean a specific genre, which throughout the rest of the world is called "alternative rock". Oasis certainly fits that criteria. So what am I getting at? Oasis is properly classified as alternative rock. WesleyDodds 23:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- The rest of the world or just the US like I said first off. I'm Irish and I wouldn't consider Oasis to be either indie or alternative, it's just rock 'n' roll as some might say, much as the Beatles are rock 'n' roll.--Play Brian Moore 21:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Erm, I don't think you can call one of the most popular Rock band in the country (UK) 'alternative rock'... alternative to what? they're a rock n roll band, that's what they've always said. I sight 'Rock N Roll Star' as my witness, "it's just rock n roll" etc. Simple as that. Rico Ricardo 23:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- In the UK, they are considered Rock or Britpop or maybe indie. They are not considered alternative in Britain rather only by America e.g. All Music Guide. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fenian Swine (talk • contribs) 11:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC).
- No, in the UK, they are considered alternative/indie more so in the US, because most Americans aren't aware that Oasis were on an indie label or are even familiar with Britpop. Nevertheless, they are the most traditionalist of the major Britpop bands. WesleyDodds 00:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Rico, it certainly isn't as simple as that. There's no rule that say the alternative cannot also be popular LiAm McShAnE (talk) 23:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with you, but I also think "alternative rock" does not really fit Oasis. They are clearly a very commercial band, whereas most alternative bands are not, because they are an alternative to mainstream rock. --91.178.184.34 (talk) 14:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
On an April 2007 episode of the radio program Loveline, Lily Allen metioned that an elementary school teacher heard her singing an Oasis song and started teaching her to sing, theoretically beginning the early days of her career. I think this should be mentioned.
--Long Away May 01:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe on the Lily Allen page. Oasis have known to influence many artists, from Arctic Monkeys to Nelly Furtado. Putting down a list of artists who(m) Oasis influenced would take a lot of space and detract from the main point of the article.--Play Brian Moore 23:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Good point. I'll try to add it in there somewhere if it's not already there.Long Away May 21:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I know that this has already been discussed. But I recently watched live concerts of Oasis in the past few years, and Liam sounds like he has had a stroke. It is awful. I remember his range and power in the 90s. He was a truly awesome singer. I know he has aged, like everyone, but his voice should not have declined this much. Maybe he is drinking too much before going on stage. This really makes me appreciate their earlier work. This is Oasis live with "Don't Go Away" in 1997. Simply Beautiful. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEO-hPFU8bE Now here is Oasis in 2005. Uggg!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAwy5xpg80A
You be the judge!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.110.155.126 (talk • contribs)
This is actually covered in Liam's article. No one really knows what's caused his vocals to decline. Dave101→talk 08:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I find some shows his voice is better than others actually, it's clear he has lost some of his high range though. It's pretty much down to 15 years of ageing, drug abuse, too much alcohol and smoking. His voice is still pretty powerful though. He also has a very physically straining way of singing, and claims that he doesn't do much in the way of vocal exercises. It happens to a lot of singers, but often if they go to a decent vocal trainer they can get back a lot of the range they're missing. But whatever, I quite like his voice all gravelly, maybe that's just me Rico Ricardo 06:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah we shouldn't make too big a deal about his voice. I too heard Liam's shocking vocals circa 2003, but when I last saw Oasis in concert in Sydney around 2005, I didn't even notice a problem User: Spud.
I'm taking down the little England flag from the infobox. I can't see that it adds anything that the word "England" doesn't already convey.--John 16:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- It looks good though. Why move it? --91.178.185.235 (talk) 20:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
one of the biggest bands in the UK and popular all over the world. None of their albums have been less than platninum..how exactly are they indie rock?
- British indie has become a very mercurial concept, hard to pin down. Watch the "British Indie" edition of "The Seven Ages Of Rock" if you can track to down.--Crestville 11:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Clearly whoever wrote they are indie rock is retarded. Indie rock means INDEPENDENT LABEL.. Oasis was signed with SONY.. one of the world's largest.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.98.112.95 (talk) 17:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Sony took care of international distribution. Their domestic record label was Creation Records, one of the key indie labels in Britain. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- Clearly whoever wrote they are indie rock is retarded. Indie rock means INDEPENDENT LABEL.. Oasis was signed with SONY.. one of the world's largest.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.98.112.95 (talk) 17:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, Oasis has made fun of groups who are too insecure in their recordings to try and make it/sell albums. In this interview Liam said of certain self-important, pretentious, pseudo-credibility groups "They all just wanna be little indie shitheads" - Soprani 03:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- To be honest, the term indie has become incredibly unclear over then years, and the argument isn't helped by people who believe that "indie rock" has a sound. I personally don't consider Oasis to be an indie band, but many people do, so I'd say it isn't crime of the century to call Oasis an indie rock band. LiAm McShAnE (talk) 23:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Surely Noel's (and Oasis') current label - Big Brother - counts as an independent label? The.shite.pours.out.of.me (talk) 23:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, but the reasons for Big Brother are rather commercial I think. Which is not the case with many indie bands, although I'm not familiar with the movement. --91.178.184.34 (talk) 14:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
From reading this article, it is my understanding that Oasis covered Within You Without You by The Beatles. First of all, how do I get this song? Sounds awesome. Second, we need a citation to proove that they did indeed cover this, in the case that there was never a retail version of it. Lastly, the article also states that this recording was used in the remix album Love (The Beatles album). Through my original research I have found this to be untrue. I won't touch the article quite yet until I get feedback either way. Thanks! thealexfish 01:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I'll touch the article for you. Love (The Beatles Album) is made up exclusively of Beatles recordings. I expect people with disagree but I'm gonna be bold... --Stanleytheman 22:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
just checked the reference and NG states that Oasis were inspired by LOVE to record the cover of Within you without you. Therefore THEALEXFISH, that proves that you are right, and Oasis did do the cover you talk about, AND that if LOVE inspired them, they could't have recorded on it/for it! Cool --Stanleytheman 23:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
They covered it for the 40th anniversary of Sgt. Peppers longely hearts club bands release, organised by the BBC a lot of big acts re-recorded songs from the album with the original equipment and with the same recording engineer, at Abbey Road studio's. The tracks were played on BBC radio. If there's an official reference about it I imagine it will be on the BBC website somewhere. 81.157.241.251 03:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Should there be something there about that? Bobo6balde66 18:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Digsy's Dinner has been proposed for deletion. Go and remove the template if you can improve the article or otherwise object the deletion. The main concern is it doesn't have enough verifiable information, and since it's a song article, it should only be a re-direct to Definitely Maybe. Cheers. -- Reaper X 17:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- The main concern is not that it lacks verifiable information, but that articles about songs which weren't singles are not normally needed on Wikipedia. Of course there are special cases, and it may be that this is one of them. But "Rock 'n' Roll Star", "Up in the Sky", "Columbia (song)", "Sad Song (Oasis song)", "Bring It on Down", "Slide Away", "Married with Children (song)" don't need stand-alone articles either. They should all be redirects to the album; the issue is not the present poor state of the articles but the inherent non-notability of album tracks. --John 18:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Since all other Stop the Clocks songs have articles, shouldn't Slide Away's be recreated. As I recall it had enough information anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.254.83.148 (talk) 21:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Image:Oasis D'You Know What I Mean.ogg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 16:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I'll be able to handle sourcing all the way up through Be Here Now. Can anyone cover 1999 to now (there should be an abundance of news items on the web from that period, so it should be just an effort of looking for them)? WesleyDodds (talk) 10:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- I did my best. 75pickup (talk · contribs) 04:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Since the beginning of the collaboration people have been changing the subsections for history left and right. I've just revised it but I'm 100% confident that I'm right. I think we should discuss this before we make any more major changes. 75pickup (talk · contribs) 21:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- There's huge blocks of text, so I'm all for more subsections. We might want to go roughly by album. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- I believe the sections should be wider: 1991-1994 / 1994-1998 / 1999-2007 / 2007- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.89.191.118 (talk) 00:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Why isn't the official Oasis logo used on this arcticles info section, as on the Muse and Arctic Monkeys pages? Is there any sort of weird wiki policy against it?--Play Brian Moore (talk) 18:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, logos are generally frowned upon in band articles. Particularly if they are just put into the infobox (the namespace in the infobox wasn't intended for that). WesleyDodds (talk) 09:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- But it looks better with logo, though? --91.178.185.235 (talk) 20:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikiwand in your browser!
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.
