As a young American who used to listen to a shit ton of Nirvana and now prefers Oasis, I really find the parallels interesting.
The Brits and Americans in the 90s seemed to be living in entirely seperate worlds of sound, both bands being the "voice of a generation" in their respective countries. I didn't grow up with them, but I have to say, I vastly prefer Oasis, and the volume of work by the Gallagher brothers in general.
I don't understand why they weren't more popular here either. Perhaps it's just me not growing up in the 90s. It seemed the mentality wrote them off as a one hit wonder due to the overexposure of Wonderwall, and many people just stuck to that. It's a shame too because the post-grunge era was arguably one of the worst eras in music history.
Many musicians in places like Athens, GA had interesting ideas going around but got little to no exposure whatsoever. What went wrong for Oasis in America?
Oasis, from an American
Other urls found in this thread:
>The Brits and Americans in the 90s seemed to be living in entirely seperate worlds of sound, both bands being the "voice of a generation" in their respective countries.
Not really. We'd all been into grunge before there was Britpop. I know the dates just about overlap between Kurt dying and Supersonic but grunge was already over before that and it took a while for Oasis to catch on. I think of there being a separation of maybe a year or two in reality.
You can see this in the music press, which used to matter (NME, MM, like Pitchfork but far more important in their day). They were so desperate for a movement to replace grunge to sell papers they invented one, NWONW. Some of the survivors made into Britpop, most notably Elastica as, after all, these are made up labels.
>What went wrong for Oasis in America?
They got scared. There was a big show they did where Liam didn't go on due to an argument they'd had, then heckled Noel from the crowd. America, rightly in my view, decided that they weren't ready for prime time. The thing is, America didn't really need Oasis for anything - Oasis was about proving that indie rock was still a valid idiom for working-class artists, and the press hyped them disproportionately because no one at a rave needs the NME.
Americans are very professional, corporate people and Oasis didn't have a frontman like Chris Martin or Bono. They had one that was more like Johnny Rotten.
As an American who was around in the '90's a few comments:
1) Oasis was pretty big in the USA. They sold millions of albums and iirc 5-6 of their songs got a lot of radio airplay, which since it was the mid-'90's before the WWW took over, was the mark of how big a band was to the average American.
The difference was that in the UK they were massive and the "war" between Oasis and Blur was all consuming to the UK music press, which, which obviously was not the case in the USA.
2) The USA, being a much bigger country on a different continent, has more influences at any given time than the UK, which is pretty provincial. In particular I would say that the mid-'90's is when hip-hop & rap became mainstream for suburban white kids in the USA- that was when you would see white boys wearing cargo pants hanging off their asses and trying to replicate gangsta speak even through there wasn't a black person within 20 miles.
They were as big as they were in the UK over here for a brief moment in 1995-97. One of the biggest rock bands in the country, Morning Glory sold 4 million copies and was one of the best selling albums of 1996. They lost favor because Be Here Now was a disappointment (still hit #2 out of hype) and the Gallaghers were badmouthing Americans in interviews
they werent as big as they were in the uk, but were still pretty popular. the thing is in the UK they were beatles level big, had several #1s and sold a million concert tickets for their knebworth gig, dominated the charts for 20 years there. here they were just one of many big radio alt rock bands that came and went, like the gin blossoms or hootie or live
Americans are not open to music from other parts of the world unless it heavily imitates and fits what they are doing. A band that belong to a genre/scene that was literally called Britpop is something that could never make a huge impact in a highly nationalistic country like the US. If you want to take America's hostility towards foreign artists to the extreme, just look at the Sinead O Connor Situation where she got booed for not wanting venues to play the US anthem at her shows.
The only reason English artists made any sort of splash in the US at all is because of the shared language and payola. Otherwise UK artists would have experienced the same sort of path as other Western European nations like France, Italy and German (aka a couple of successful Pop acts in a decade but most irrelevant for the American audience).
Oasis were a lot bigger than the other Britpop bands in the US at least. They actually had some pop radio hits, while the other bands could barely even make a dent on the alt radio charts let alone pop charts. Blur was the only other one that really did anything in the US and they didnt come close to Oasis commercially at the time
Today the only britpop songs that still get regular airplay in the US are Wonderwall, Champagne Supernova, Song 2, and Bittersweet Symphony if you count that. Back in the day you could count Connection by Elastica as a minor hit as well but that never gets played anymore. Pulp and Suede didnt do anything here.
Isn't Radiohead considered Britpop technically?
Eh not really they werent usually associated with it or considered part of the scene, although I can see a few tracks like Karma Police or Fake Plastic Trees being close. Whenever Britpop is mentioned Radiohead and The Verve dont usually get named with Oasis, Blur, Suede, Pulp, Elastica, and whatnot who are always brought up. Ive heard OKC called "post britpop" before but thats really it.
bends is kind of britpoppy, although they arent really a britpop band imo and they dont consider themselves one
> Jonny Greenwood said: “To us, Britpop was just a 1960s revival. It just leads to pastiche. It’s you wishing it was another era. But as soon as you go down that route, you might as well be a Dixieland jazz band, really.”
>Yorke added: “The whole Britpop thing made me fucking angry. I hated it. It was backwards-looking, and I didn’t want any part of it.”
As an American, I prefer Blur.
In addition to the 2 you mentioned Oasis had a few other songs that were big on the radio back in the day like Live Forever, Dont Look Back in Anger, and Don't Go Away
they play the piano riff from supergrass alright in a commercial for some allergy medicine
That song's been in a few movies too, but the band isnt well known here.
Some of these Britpop and UK alternative bands of the 80s/90s actually had minor hits on the radio/billboard at the time, stuff like Stone Roses, Happy Mondays, Primal Scream, Morrissey, Charlatans etc. that wouldnt be considered mainstream now (EMF and Jesus Jones had #1 pop hits), their albums just didnt chart that high and they couldnt maintain long term mainstream appeal or staying power. Oasis comparatively did quite well in that they had good album sales, top 40 hits, were talked about in the press, and multiple mtv/radio hits instead of just 1-2.
You must really love yourself you fag , come back with something that doesn’t read like bargain bin gonzo you’re a fucking nobody
Man why did the American public choose the worst songs by the worst Britpop bands, what is it in the water that chooses people to avoid Suede and Pulp and instead listen to shit like Song 2.
rare lucid oasis posts
because song 2 is a super catchy anthem you moron. i love suede and pulp but they (and blur outside of song 2, for that matter) have nothing to offer non-uk people who aren't anglophiles. americans especially don't have the time nor the inclination to learn about other cultures. to them, austin powers was a more accurate portrayal of england than PARKLIFE or any other britpop stuff about doing drugs in council estates