Who will be the world's next biggest band?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
All I'm saying is there's a reason Seinfeld and the Beatles are such sacred cows.

And re: the stupid swooncore joke, I'd take any of those albums over the garbage Shuttlecock have fed the public for the past ten years.

I heard NLOTH was pretty good.
 
Imperor said:
And re: the stupid swooncore joke, I'd take any of those albums over the garbage Shuttlecock have fed the public for the past ten years.

Sorry for being stupid, Deputy.
 
GYI0062230319_LR1.jpg


please tell me they were going to a comic convention as their favorite twilight characters or something.
 
I thought the guy on the far right's hair was just added through MS Paint. And I can't shake that thought either.
 
BritPop, it's remembered primarily for the rise of and rivalry between Blur and Oasis, even though both bands approached music completely differently. The Verve get sucked in because Urban Hymns was popular in 1997. Travis get sucked in because they emerged in the late 90's, but they were most "happening" in '99, when The Man Who was released, so they are, by chronology alone, post-BritPop.

BritPop isn't even close to a genre, not in the same way Grunge, Nu-Metal or Dubstep are.. BritPop is simply and very loosely popular British music from the mid to late 90's. I find it impossible to define in any other way.
 
BritPop, it's remembered primarily for the rise of and rivalry between Blur and Oasis, even though both bands approached music completely differently. The Verve get sucked in because Urban Hymns was popular in 1997. Travis get sucked in because they emerged in the late 90's, but they were most "happening" in '99, when The Man Who was released, so they are, by chronology alone, post-BritPop.

BritPop isn't even close to a genre, not in the same way Grunge, Nu-Metal or Dubstep are.. BritPop is simply and very loosely popular British music from the mid to late 90's. I find it impossible to define in any other way.

This is Britpop:

Oasis Roll With It - YouTube

Blur - Park Life - YouTube

Supergrass - Alright - YouTube

Lush - Ladykillers - YouTube

Pulp - Sorted out for E's and Whizz - YouTube

etc etc

Sure theres a lot of grey area and even some bands that move in and out, but I'd say Britpop had a definitive sound and tone; mostly upbeat, poppy, guitar driven songs that borrow heavily from the 60s British Invasion
 
Pretty spot-on. And that's why I don't think The Verve fits, especially considering their first album.

Hell, Super Furry Animals fit the bill more, and they started around the same time.
 
i don't know, didn't the verve kind of make their career off trying to sound like exile-era stones like oasis made a career off revolver/rubber soul beatles? that's a broader generalization than i think i'd like to make (and a little unfounded since i'm not overly familiar with much more outside of about 3 verve songs + a richard ashcroft solo album), and in and of itself sort of implies that the verve don't fit the britpop bill at all.


god i hate that blur song.

i still have no fucking clue what dubstep is.
 
I don't think The Verve sound anything like the Stones, even if they are paying royalties to them for one of their classical pieces. That's probably what you're thinking of.

Primal Scream loves the Stones though.
 
I really don't think Oasis sound very much like Revolver/Rubber Soul Beatles at all.

I agree. The Gallaghers obviously worship Lennon, but their take on his music was so bastardized that they ended up becoming something else entirely. They were reaching for the ubiquity of The Beatles rather than the form and technique, I think. I say all this as a massive Oasis fan.

Reading through this thread, I cannot help but disagree with the idea that there will never be another band of U2's scope. Just because there are no contenders visible at the moment does not mean that one will not arise in the future. If we take U2's legacy as mass commercial appeal plus artistic relevance, whatever that means, then they had perhaps six or seven years in which they fulfilled both criteria simultaneously. I can see another band doing that at some point. Arcade Fire could do it right now, but Win thankfully does not see music as an evangelical mission.
 
I don't think The Verve sound anything like the Stones, even if they are paying royalties to them for one of their classical pieces. That's probably what you're thinking of.

Primal Scream loves the Stones though.

nah, i'm thinking of that richard ashcroft solo thing that sounded like the entire thing was a straight up stones rip. i didn't even know jagger wrote bittersweet symphony til a couple hours ago when the song came up in conversation here at work. talk about random. not sure how it came up, i walked into the room and people were talking about how they wish they never had to hear it again.
 
Jagger didn't write "Bittersweet Symphony."

Ashcroft wrote it, but he took a lot of the music in the song from an old orchestral version of the Stones' "The Last Time."
 
ok, then that dude is wrong. only thing i know is i hate that song and agree with whoever said they wish to never hear it again. and that i'm tired and want to be home sleeping.

and no, oasis doesn't sound like rubber soul/revolver beatles. they sound like a cheap knockoff.
 
See, I don't even think they sound like they were trying to knock off the Beatles' sound. They were obviously self-professed Beatle fanatics, and there are a few glaring instances where they stole from them (the end of She's Electric, the lyrical winks, etc.), but musically, Oasis' (Noel's) guitars were big and loud and heavily distorted, and really nothing like anything the Beatles did.

Listen to Definitely Maybe. For the most part the guitars on that album are very big and very loud, crowded, sort of a wall of sound thing. Noel ripped off T-Rex more than he ripped off the Beatles.

Oasis were too obnoxious and in your face to be a Beatles ripoff.

EDIT: Oh, and Liam's vocals are more a copy of John Lydon than John Lennon.
 
See, I don't even think they sound like they were trying to knock off the Beatles' sound. They were obviously self-professed Beatle fanatics, and there are a few glaring instances where they stole from them (the end of She's Electric, the lyrical winks, etc.), but Oasis' (Noel's) guitars were big and loud and heavily distorted, and really nothing like anything the Beatles did.

Listen to Definitely Maybe. For the most part the guitars on that album are very big and very loud, crowded, sort of a wall of sound thing. Noel ripped off T-Rex more than he ripped off the Beatles.

Oasis were too obnoxious and in your face to be a Beatles ripoff.

Liam Gallagher proclaims himself as the reincarnation of John Lennon. I certainly think they were shooting for a new Beatles sound.

To the thread... all the names like Foo Fighters and Pearl Jam... doesn't work. They're too old. I'm not saying they're about to leave anytime soon, but their best work is past them.

Which leads me to my point that if Mikel Jollet would've gotten started with music... oh... 20 years ago... I'd throw The Airborne Toxic Event into the mix as huge for an up and coming band. Unfortunately, being 37 years old doesn't hold your case for building a big legacy.
 
I approve of this post just for this part alone. :heart:

Me too :up:

I love Elbow and love their music, have all their albums, BUT I still think they are not really candidates for the "biggest band in the world" title because they don't make music that appeals to a huge enough audience. I think there will never be a "biggest" band like U2 again. They are and will always be the most universal band around. All the band that are popular now won't have a long enough carreer and a huge enough appeal to compete with U2.
 
Back
Top Bottom