respect77;4181709 said:
It is easy to forget how much the Internet helps current artists in global availability.
Of course, similar to what I mentioned with the "no-names" on Soundcloud and Bandcamp.
respect77;4181709 said:
So I feel it is unfair to suggest his success was because people couldn't avoid him on MTV.
I never suggested it was the only reason, I said it was one reason, and it was one factor that definitely would have helped when it came to the Western world.
I remember reading a discussion a while ago about Michael's impact in Europe/eastwards. It was suggested that while there was impact during the Thriller/Bad era, it
really took off more-so from the Dangerous era onwards. As you grew up in Europe at the time, what are your personal thoughts on this?
mj_frenzy;4181683 said:
It is also important to stress that it is really admirable that it took Oasis fewer studio albums & a shorter period of time to achieve that size of impact (similar to The Beatles’ one). So, I think any comparison between these two bands makes absolute sense, even from a mania point of view.
Also, Oasis even surpassed that entire cultural movement called ‘Britpop’ from which they originated from, simply because their huge appeal could not be confined to specific movements.
Alright, well let's compare their mania and impact through the charts.
Fewer studio albums?
Focusing in on the UK...
- With
Definitely Maybe, Oasis struck gold which essentially went straight to #1 in the UK, but only claimed the top for a week (the album danced around in the Top Ten for a respectable amount of time though).
-
(What's The Story) Morning Glory? fared much, much better. It debuted at #1, sat at #2/#3 for the next 3 months, before going to #1 for 6 weeks, #2 once more, then another 3 week streak of #1.
-
Be Here Now spent the first 4 weeks at #1, followed up by a week at #2, then one more week at #1.
For The Beatles, Beatlemania was already in full-effect by around October 1963, a month
before the release of their second studio album, which came out in November 1963. Their first album came out in March 1966 and was slower to reach #1, doing so in May. What I consider extremely remarkable however is the fact that The Beatles reigned King at #1 consecutively for almost
an entire year, from the 11th of May 1963 until the 24th April 1964. The Beatles took back #1 on the 25th July 1964, holding on until the 6th February 1965. There were 4 albums released in this period:
-
Please Please Me/With The Beatles in the first streak
-
A Hard Day's Night/Beatles for Sale in the 2nd streak.
You are right, the speed of which Oasis hit #1 with their debut album is actually
very admirable in itself. Fewer studio albums though? Same Impact? Mmmm, yeah gonna have to disagree.
Focusing on the USA, The Beatles first success was at the very beginning of 1964 when the song
I Want To Hold Your Hand reached #1 on January 16, 1964. A few weeks later, Beatlemania truly took hold of the nation when they landed in America and performed on
The Ed Sullivan Show to a record 73 million people. By this point, only two albums had been released, they were released 10 days apart in January because of the significant demand for their material after
IWTHYH reached #1.
They remained at #1 from the 15th February 1964 - 5th June 1964, reclaiming #1 from 25 July - 30th October 1964.
For Oasis in America, with all due respect, they hardly even compare. Not once in their career have they ever top the US album charts (although they did come very, very close with
(What's The Story) Morning Glory? and
Be Here Now, #4 and #2 respectively). Additionally, they never had a #1 single in the USA either (Wonderwall was closest at #8, then #55 with Don't Look Back in Anger. They did, however, reach #1 a few times in the Alternative charts!). If you look at singles in the USA in 1964 alone for The Beatles, they had 3 #1 singles, with another 4 songs reaching the Top 5. 1965 had 5 #1's for them.
The Beatles and Oasis can be compared, until you come to the United States of America, which is admittedly the biggest commercial market for music in the world. The Beatles cracked it early on and have held it in their grip ever since (Between 1991 and 2014, The Beatles sold over 65 million albums in the USA
alone), Oasis never did.
Otherwise yes, looking at the rest of their albums, both The Beatles and Oasis have both held a very solid grip charts-wise for the rest of their careers (if I look at the peak position) and they were both the biggest selling British bands of their respective decade.
mj_frenzy;4181683 said:
Mania aside, personally I consider the quality of Oasis’ music better than the Beatles’ music (mainly because of Noel Gallagher’s phenomenal songwriting abilities in Oasis’ first three studio albums), whereas the only really good Beatles’ album is only one (“Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band” that was released in 1967).
Only really good Beatles album?!? Them's fighting words right there
For
Really Good Beatles albums, I'd consider A Hard Day's Night, Rubber Soul, Revolver, Sgt. Peppers, Magical Mystery Tour, perhaps The White Album, and Abbey Road to all be a part of that list(Really showing my love for them here :lol
. I personally consider John Lennon and Paul McCartney to be amongst the greatest songwriters of all time, and if anything their songwriting got even better during the 1960s.
But at the end of the day, this part is all subjective though so hey, each to their own