Oasis by a good margin. Pearl Jam is a good punk song, Oasis is a classic. I don't get how people diss Oasis when they produced songs like Bring it On Down and Champagne Supernove, but each his own
"The mind is a wonderfull thing to be altered"
The Point, Dublin 2006
Bercy, Paris September 11, 2006
ISS Dome, Dusseldorf, 2007
We are putting Pearl Jam and Oasis on equal ground here? :?
I think it would be fair to say that Oasis is revered in the UK as much as Pearl Jam is revered in the US. Obviously different bands, but both rock in my opinion.
Oasis sucks. They are a wannabe Beatles cover band, and it makes me want to get all stabby that people are comparing their pile of hot crap music to Pearl Jam. Seriously, somebody said Champagne Supernova is a good song. I need a drink now.
Oasis sucks. They are a wannabe Beatles cover band, and it makes me want to get all stabby that people are comparing their pile of hot crap music to Pearl Jam. Seriously, somebody said Champagne Supernova is a good song. I need a drink now.
Maybe my opinion is derived from their radio hits, but I think they are a boring band. Just like Coldplay.
Oasis by a good margin. Pearl Jam is a good punk song, Oasis is a classic. I don't get how people diss Oasis when they produced songs like Bring it On Down and Champagne Supernove, but each his own
Their first 2 albums were classics and would be regarded as some of the best of the 90's if people didn't hate them for acting the way they do. Their first 2 albums are outstanding, but they are hard to take seriously when they are making fun of the Rolling Stones and talking about how they are better than the Beatles. If they just acted normal people would appreciate those albums more. That said, if they acted normal they wouldn't be as big as they are for so long. They are kind of like Paris Hilton in a way: they are famous, and most people don't really like them, yet that is the reason their fame keeps growing. They are still relevent even though they haven't put out a decent album in years (I kinda liked the one in 2006 btw). Oasis' image has become living up to being overrated
Here is an article by Klosterman that pretty much sums up Pearl Jam and Oasis.
Whenever historians examine the past, they tend to put forth one of two points: They either want to show how things today are totally different, or they want to argue that things are pretty much the same. The problem (of course) is that both conditions are usually true at the same time: Eleven years ago in Spin, Village Voice gossip columnist Michael Musto wrote an article that tried to reunite the cast of The Breakfast Club, an idea that MTV still thought was wildly original last summer; more than ten years have passed and nothing has changed. However, there are also two articles in this issue that make reference to My So-Called Life (one of which attempts to use Claire Danes as proof that D Generation's debut album wasn't terrible). More than ten years have passed and everything has changed (or at least everything that relates to Brian Krakow not getting laid).
As such, I'm unsure if the cover story on Pearl Jam (1995's Best Band, as chosen by Spinreaders) or the concert review of Oasis (playing clubs on the Definitely Maybe tour) is a reflection of a) how rock music has changed over the past decade or (b) which cultural clichés transcend time. What's interesting is that both articles predict the future (one latently, one overtly), and both predictions proved accurate; the reason this qualifies as "interesting" is that any future that's easy to predict usually proves nothing is terribly different.
The Pearl Jam story is a Q&A with Eddie Vedder at the apex of the singer's public self-loathing. "I totally agree with that," he says when the reporter mentions that Pearl Jam were also selected as the year's Most Overrated Band. "I wouldn't have put us as the best band, but I certainly would have put us as the most overrated." Vedder goes on to express guilt that Mudhoney never experienced the platinum success of Pearl Jam (which is paradoxical, since Eddie clearly indicates that fame ruined his life, so I'm not sure why he would've wanted Mark Arm to have the same negative experience, but, you know, whatever). The unspoken prediction throughout this piece is that Pearl Jam secretly intend to become a smaller, less important rock band. Which they did. And that's kind of amazing.
I'm not sure if any major band ever managed their success as adroitly as Pearl Jam -- maybe U2 or the Rolling Stones, but they merely figured out a way to maintain their achieved status. Pearl Jam actually constructed the curve (and the meaning) of their entire existence. I'm confused by people who hate Pearl Jam. I can't understand why anyone would hate a group that became the biggest band in the world and then dedicated its career to quietly becoming average size. Pearl Jam only made one great song ("Corduroy"), but they have about 19 others that are better than decent; they easily could have made three more albums that were replicants of Ten and spent the remainder of their days eating lobster claws inside a biosphere of gold. But they didn't. They didn't, because they thought that would make them unlikable. You see, nice guys do not finish last; nice guys finish in the middle.
Which brings us to Oasis, a band that cut out the middleman and passed the megalomania on to you. Oasis became the anti-Pearl Jam: They weren't nice to anyone, including themselves. "Because Oasis is fueled by a creative tension growing out of the mutual loathing of the Gallagher brothers," wrote Jonathan Bernstein, "it's questionable whether the band will have an evolution." Oasis did evolve; they evolved into cokeheads, and it became increasingly difficult to take them seriously. But it's even more difficult to argue with their musical output; whereas Pearl Jam only made one great song, Noel Gallagher wrote at least three for Definitely Maybe. And he kept going. "Acquiesce" is awesome x 3. "Don't Look Back in Anger" is awesome x 11. Everyone likes to claim Be Here Now is atrocious, but it's still cooler than anything by Blur. In fact, Oasis produced two of the three exceptional Britpop albums released in the entire '90s. So we are left to wonder: Who's better off? Pearl Jam for succeeding at becoming average on purpose, or Oasis for becoming ridiculous by accident? Both Eddie and Noel adore Neil Young, a man who asked a similar question in 1979: Is it better to burn out or to fade away? Everything changes.
and I used to be in the "Oasis Sucks" camp just because all I knew was Wonderwall and Supernova
I changed when I heard: Rock and Roll Star, Bring It On Down, Supersonic, Columbia, Morning Glory and Hello
Then I really started to like them and could look past the fact that Liam is a total douche, but that's what is funny about those guys. Only they know if they actually believe their own bullshit they throw out there.
Oasis by a good margin. Pearl Jam is a good punk song, Oasis is a classic. I don't get how people diss Oasis when they produced songs like Bring it On Down and Champagne Supernove, but each his own
Oasis sucks. They are a wannabe Beatles cover band, and it makes me want to get all stabby that people are comparing their pile of hot crap music to Pearl Jam. Seriously, somebody said Champagne Supernova is a good song. I need a drink now.
Yea god forbid someone should have a different taste of music to yours. Douche
"The mind is a wonderfull thing to be altered"
The Point, Dublin 2006
Bercy, Paris September 11, 2006
ISS Dome, Dusseldorf, 2007
LOL at people not voting for Oasis. That's song's a classic. The lyrics may be nonsense, but Pearl Jam's one isn't exactly Shakespeare. Plus that ending guitar solo...so good. Call them thieves or unoriginal, but they could sure write a song.
Comments
The Point, Dublin 2006
Bercy, Paris September 11, 2006
ISS Dome, Dusseldorf, 2007
I think it would be fair to say that Oasis is revered in the UK as much as Pearl Jam is revered in the US. Obviously different bands, but both rock in my opinion.
Perhaps both Bad Religion and Pearl Jam will play their Supersonic in Philly...
Or join forces on Sonic Reducer?
:?
I can't stand Oasis... so I give it to PJ.
That said, I don't like Oasis. I like Punk music too, so Pearl Jams version takes the cake for me.
Charlotte 03
Asheville 04
Atlanta 12
Greenville 16, Columbia 16
Seattle 18
Nashville 22
Ohana Festival 24 x2
MTL 9/15/05
HRTFD 5/13/06
BOS 5/24/06, 5/25/06
VEGAS 7/6/06
CHI 8/5/07
NJ 6/19/08
NYC 6/25/08
HRTFD 6/27/08
MANSFLD 6/28/08, 6/30/08
E.V. BOS 8/1/08
CHI 8/23/09, 8/24/09
PHILLY 10/30/09, 10/31/09
BOS 5/17/10
CHI 7/19/13
WOOSTA 10/15/13, 10/16/13
HRTFD 10/25/13
BOS 8/5/16, 8/7/16
BOS 9/2/18, 9/4/18
Their first 2 albums were classics and would be regarded as some of the best of the 90's if people didn't hate them for acting the way they do. Their first 2 albums are outstanding, but they are hard to take seriously when they are making fun of the Rolling Stones and talking about how they are better than the Beatles. If they just acted normal people would appreciate those albums more. That said, if they acted normal they wouldn't be as big as they are for so long. They are kind of like Paris Hilton in a way: they are famous, and most people don't really like them, yet that is the reason their fame keeps growing. They are still relevent even though they haven't put out a decent album in years (I kinda liked the one in 2006 btw). Oasis' image has become living up to being overrated
Here is an article by Klosterman that pretty much sums up Pearl Jam and Oasis.
http://www.spin.com/articles/january-1995
Whenever historians examine the past, they tend to put forth one of two points: They either want to show how things today are totally different, or they want to argue that things are pretty much the same. The problem (of course) is that both conditions are usually true at the same time: Eleven years ago in Spin, Village Voice gossip columnist Michael Musto wrote an article that tried to reunite the cast of The Breakfast Club, an idea that MTV still thought was wildly original last summer; more than ten years have passed and nothing has changed. However, there are also two articles in this issue that make reference to My So-Called Life (one of which attempts to use Claire Danes as proof that D Generation's debut album wasn't terrible). More than ten years have passed and everything has changed (or at least everything that relates to Brian Krakow not getting laid).
As such, I'm unsure if the cover story on Pearl Jam (1995's Best Band, as chosen by Spinreaders) or the concert review of Oasis (playing clubs on the Definitely Maybe tour) is a reflection of a) how rock music has changed over the past decade or (b) which cultural clichés transcend time. What's interesting is that both articles predict the future (one latently, one overtly), and both predictions proved accurate; the reason this qualifies as "interesting" is that any future that's easy to predict usually proves nothing is terribly different.
The Pearl Jam story is a Q&A with Eddie Vedder at the apex of the singer's public self-loathing. "I totally agree with that," he says when the reporter mentions that Pearl Jam were also selected as the year's Most Overrated Band. "I wouldn't have put us as the best band, but I certainly would have put us as the most overrated." Vedder goes on to express guilt that Mudhoney never experienced the platinum success of Pearl Jam (which is paradoxical, since Eddie clearly indicates that fame ruined his life, so I'm not sure why he would've wanted Mark Arm to have the same negative experience, but, you know, whatever). The unspoken prediction throughout this piece is that Pearl Jam secretly intend to become a smaller, less important rock band. Which they did. And that's kind of amazing.
I'm not sure if any major band ever managed their success as adroitly as Pearl Jam -- maybe U2 or the Rolling Stones, but they merely figured out a way to maintain their achieved status. Pearl Jam actually constructed the curve (and the meaning) of their entire existence. I'm confused by people who hate Pearl Jam. I can't understand why anyone would hate a group that became the biggest band in the world and then dedicated its career to quietly becoming average size. Pearl Jam only made one great song ("Corduroy"), but they have about 19 others that are better than decent; they easily could have made three more albums that were replicants of Ten and spent the remainder of their days eating lobster claws inside a biosphere of gold. But they didn't. They didn't, because they thought that would make them unlikable. You see, nice guys do not finish last; nice guys finish in the middle.
Which brings us to Oasis, a band that cut out the middleman and passed the megalomania on to you. Oasis became the anti-Pearl Jam: They weren't nice to anyone, including themselves. "Because Oasis is fueled by a creative tension growing out of the mutual loathing of the Gallagher brothers," wrote Jonathan Bernstein, "it's questionable whether the band will have an evolution." Oasis did evolve; they evolved into cokeheads, and it became increasingly difficult to take them seriously. But it's even more difficult to argue with their musical output; whereas Pearl Jam only made one great song, Noel Gallagher wrote at least three for Definitely Maybe. And he kept going. "Acquiesce" is awesome x 3. "Don't Look Back in Anger" is awesome x 11. Everyone likes to claim Be Here Now is atrocious, but it's still cooler than anything by Blur. In fact, Oasis produced two of the three exceptional Britpop albums released in the entire '90s. So we are left to wonder: Who's better off? Pearl Jam for succeeding at becoming average on purpose, or Oasis for becoming ridiculous by accident? Both Eddie and Noel adore Neil Young, a man who asked a similar question in 1979: Is it better to burn out or to fade away? Everything changes.
And everything doesn't.
weird reason, but honestly beside one album from Oasis (can`t recall the name now), I can`t find anything interesting on their sound
yeah, exactly. their best songs are just not at all interesting or exciting.
I changed when I heard: Rock and Roll Star, Bring It On Down, Supersonic, Columbia, Morning Glory and Hello
Then I really started to like them and could look past the fact that Liam is a total douche, but that's what is funny about those guys. Only they know if they actually believe their own bullshit they throw out there.
Washington D.C. '04, London '05,Hamilton '05,Grand Rapids '06,
Cleveland '06, Detroit '06,Pittsburgh '06,Cincinnati '06,Chicago '07
NYC '08, NYC '08, Chicago '09, Chicago '09, ACL '09, Columbus 2010, Noblesville 2010, Cleveland 2010, Buffalo 2010.
REALLY?!?!?!?!?!?
Yea god forbid someone should have a different taste of music to yours. Douche
The Point, Dublin 2006
Bercy, Paris September 11, 2006
ISS Dome, Dusseldorf, 2007
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epRsXjUawkA
oh and Oasis blew.
Don't forget JJ Fad ! Beatbox and all !