Urban Hat€monger ?

Metallica - Possibly , they have a hell of a lot of fanboys still. Personally I don't really like anything they've done since Master Of Puppets. And I don't think i've even played those in over 10 years.

Nirvana - I've gone into long painstaking detail about them before so i'll just say yes.

Oasis - Show me one person who actually rates Oasis since 1995.
Not over-rated in the slightest

Modest Mouse - Heard a couple of their early albums years ago & to me nothing stood out whatsoever. It was almost like they set out to become the most average band in the world. Can't say I like them . can't say I hate them either in fact i'll stop now before I get bored of writing anymore about them.

__________________

boo boo

I hate being so alone in the Modest Mouse hate camp. But its refreshing just to find someone who dosen't like them

__________________
It's only knock n' knowall, but I like it

http://www.last.fm/user/kingboobs

mr dave

i think with a lot of those bands, especially nirvana and metallica. you really had to be there to get their full impact.

one thing i've noticed since i started frequenting music message boards a few years ago is that younger people have a hard time truly grasping how music moved through society before the net. it's one thing to know the terms, it's another to have lived with them.

it's not to say that music was better back in the day. hardly. but there was significantly more work involved in getting new music for both the artist and the listener.

it's easy to sit back and reflect on how you perceive things to have been back in the day but it's hardly accurate unless you were there. metallica all sounded the same in the 80s? perhaps if you're listening to them with current ears (compare 'jump in the fire' with 'leper messiah' or 'creeping death' with 'blackened' there's a fair amount of growth). nirvana is overrated? only if you're comparing their early 90s output with everything you've downloaded since the early 2000s (it was one thing to read about early pavement, pixies, sonic youth, husker du albums - it was an entirely different thing to actually find those albums on a shelf if you didn't live in a large city)

oasis WAS mostly hype though, they were in competition with blur to be the next big thing from the UK in north american press once grunge started repeating itself.

__________________
i am the universe

Urban Hat€monger ?

Actually it was the other way around.

It was Blur who were hyped to death. Blur were from London and were middle class. The people who worked for the NME & Melody Maker were from London and middle class. The last thing they wanted was a bunch of northern working class oiks muscling in. Most of the Oasis hype came from Noel & Liams mouths.
Blur were the media darlings , while Oasis were the people's favourite.

The whole Blur vs Oasis thing was all down to Damon Albarn & his buddy Steve Sutherland who just happened to be the editor of the NME. They thought they could sell more papers & records by instigating the whole thing. It was Blur who moved release dates so that their stuff would come out the same day as Oasis.
Sadly it backfired on them badly , Blur released easily their worst album ever in The Great Escape while Oasis went on to become the biggest selling British band in the UK ever and have 10% of the entire population of the UK apply for tickets to their 2 Knebworth gigs.

These days Albarn refuses to even discuss what happened during that whole time while Noel just laughs about it. Which for me says everything.

__________________

sl1ck

Man, there is a ton of Modest Mouse hate here. Have you guys listened to their stuff previous to these last two albums? They are a pretty decent alternative band, and they deserve some acclaim.

I don't know if Oasis is overrated, they don't really get any critical acclaim. They are a pretty awful band, that's for sure.

Nirvana's only good album was In Utero, largely in part to Steve Albini. Nevermind is a joke, and "Smells Like Teen Spirit" doesn't belong anywhere near any top songs of the 90's lists. It's a really mediocre Pixies rip-off that fails miserably.

And Metallica...lol.

__________________
Last.FM
RYM

boo boo

M&A

And no, if anything they deserve to be lynched. Too many crimes against music to count.

ROFL

__________________
It's only knock n' knowall, but I like it

http://www.last.fm/user/kingboobs

15Steps

RRRRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

how can you say the great escape was a bad album? it was a fantastic release, not their best album, but easily their 2nd or 3rd best.
every single song on wts sounded exactly the same, because all oasis does is writes the same songs over and over again, hoping to release another album like wts. and lets not even begin to talk about how bad everything they released after it, be here now and forward were basically terrible.
blur on the otherhand changed styles multiple times throughout their lifetime, just look at how much they changed from "Parklife" (which was one of the greatest brit pop albums ever along with "Modern Life Is Rubbish") to "13" all the way to "Think Tank".

taking all this into account, tell me again why oasis was better than blur

also, blur were FAR from being the media favorite, just look at how arrogant and proud Liam was whenever in interviews, he was ALWAYS trying to be a john lennon, when all he was in reality was an *******.


also, the past couple days i really listened to some of modest mouse's really early stuff (from like 01 and back)
some of it is actually really quite good. i think everything they put out after that was just wayyy too average, and i think they were trying too hard.

__________________

Urban Hat€monger ?

I didn't say it was a bad album , I said it was their worst , and it was based on the 4 albums they'd released up till that point.


You couldn't have read what I wrote then , because I never expressed a preference anywhere.

What did I say again?

And it had to , they weren't best buddies with the editor of the NME.

__________________

15Steps

1. now tell me, was it a good album then?

2. no, but throughout the whole statement, you were leaning towards oasis. now tell me, who do you prefer?

3. you said that Blur was the media favorite, and im saying no, oasis were the media favorite for a few reasons. 1. they were more popular = more media coverage 2. they were the biggest band in the world at that time 3. they released the top selling albums. even METALLICA (ooooooh) said that blur were a bunch of pansy prettyboys and that oasis were superior, now who are the metal fanboys going to lean toward.

4. NME wasnt the only music magazine at the time, and no, damon albarn was not best friends with the editor, they just knew eachother well.

__________________

sleepy jack

He said 2001 and back, there's no disagreement between you guys there.

__________________