Talk:Oasis (band)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Major Revisions

I feel this article needs an entire revision. Painbearer...you need to be a bit more moderate in your contributions. There is a lot of irrelavant information in this article, let alone spelling and gramatical errors. I suggest you trim it down. Also, please refer to the Wikipedia instructions on creating articles. Little things like mentioning Paul "Bonehead" Arthurs in "[[ ]]" links repetitively isn't necessary. -- TheSunTheSea 17:28, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I went ahead and made changes to the intro, "Later Years", and "Early Years" sections of the article. I felt (as many others did), that the article contained a lot of irrelavant information and lacked proper structure.

There are still many aspects of the article that need to be revised. For future reference, please refer to the Wikipedia policies of making contributions. There are many things with this article that do not follow the policies. Thanks. -- TheSunTheSea 18:36, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Contributions by Painbearer

I suggest that he mention any future contributions in this Discussion page before he alters the article. It seems most of his writing is haphazard and written as if he's writing a personal letter to a friend. It lacks any form of structure and he fails to follow Wikipedia policies. TheSunTheSea 22:53, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Other User Comments

Painbearer, i recall Noel Gallagher quoting many times that definitely maybe sold 10 million copies at least.

"Simpergroup"

The terms "simpergroup" and "oasis" together return only 25 hits on Google. The only website that explains what this group is is here. Is this group notable enough to be listed at the very top of this article, when it doesn't even have its own page?

Acegikmo1 02:11, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm up for scrapping it.--Crestville 18:08, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

---

This is crap. Too POV, not enough info. Scrap it. Start anewCurtsurly 10:06, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I just feel that each section is far too big. Either trim it down, or start a subpage for each "era" of the band. --Madchester 23:27, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)

Why don't you give it a once over and trim it down, get rid of what you feel is too much and then I'll do the same. Got to admit though, it's comprahensive.--Crestville 11:05, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Which genre?

Slightly O/T, but I think that it's important. At the moment, the genres for Oasis's albums & singles are not consistant. They are generally britpop or rock. I think that we should get this consistant, but don't want to make an arbitary decision by myself. I would go for rock, but what do other people think? (btw, I asked this at the WTSMG page, but didn't get a response there.) --Apyule 03:32, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'd say a Rock n Roll band of the Britpop era. That's a bit long though.--Crestville 19:44, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to say something lke that too, but it doesn't really fit. One word would be best, but we might be able to get away with something like Rock/Britpop. Could that work? --Apyule 05:45, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Come on, somone other people must have a view on this. Please, speak now or don't complain if I change it all unilaterally. --Apyule 29 June 2005 04:55 (UTC)

Why should they be consistent? Blur started off as a shoegazing band before moving through Britpop to grunge and art school and so on. I think it might also be a mistake to describe these movements in music as genres. Hiding 29 June 2005 08:45 (UTC)

Morning Glory

Is there any objection to the placement of the below somewhere in reference to the album (What's The Story) Morning Glory?: The title of the album references a British slang expression for an erection. Hiding 17:20, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Scrap the article?

Rather than moaning about the article being 'crap', why don't you help assist with the cleaning up of the article? I believe it there is a great amount of potential in its current state, but it just needs some fundamental work on structure and relevant NPOV information. I will add a cleanup tag to hopefully bring more attention to it.

Well said. There is lots of good stuff in there, but it needs work to get it up to standard. There is no reason why this couldn't be a feature article someday. What I think needs to happen is for a group to work on this to get it to a high standard, then we need to discuss ANY changes made. This should help with what I percieve to be our biggest problem, that lots of people have made little changes, and while each has made it better, together they have made it really messy. Another important thing is that the cleanup tag should stay untill we agree that it is up to speed. --Apyule 29 June 2005 04:27 (UTC)

What?

Why scrapping this article? I mean I worked a lot on it, why scrapping it? My past half-an-year passed doing this article as much as I can. Yeah, I agree that I might be more protective over White's information, but that's because I'm a drummer myself (or at least I'm starting to develop as such) and I have high opinion about White. Overall, I regard my work here in high place... Really guys do not scrap it. The article is great. Painbearer June 29, 2005 18:58 (UTC)

• I don't see that scrapping it is neccessary. I'm having a quick clean up for grammar just now. However, it'd be nice to get some references. Does anyone have a reference for Bonehead's given reasons for leaving the band? Hiding 29 June 2005 19:35 (UTC)

Painbearer is not a native speaker of English, so perfect grammar is not reasonable to expect. How many other contributors could write in Bulgarian? How many native speakers of English use perfect grammar? Just help, don't whinge. --Concrete Cowboy 29 June 2005 19:52 (UTC)

How many other contributors could write in Bulgarian? How many native speakers of English use perfect grammar? Just help, don't whinge. Personal Attack I'm not intending to slight anyone's grammar, just stating that I am attempting to help, and could someone please reference the article's account of Bonehead's leaving the band. Hiding 29 June 2005 20:32 (UTC)

It's on their Oa515 site you should check up there. It's one of the articles before Heathen Chemistry I think in early 2002. Painbearer June 29, 2005 22:00 (UTC)

Perfect. I've added the link to the text, ta. Hiding 29 June 2005 22:28 (UTC)

Stage trouble

Interesting to read "The 50,000 strong audience did not seem too pleased about it and started pelting the stage with bottles and objects. " . Last week (after the crazy confiscation of water bottles at the Green Day concert on 18/19 June, the management of the National Bowl at Milton Keynes anounced that people could bring any number of water bottles up to the 1 litre size. This week they downgraded that to 500 ml bottles for the upcoming (Saturday 9 and Sunday 10 July) OASIS event, citing the risk that people would use them as missiles. Eh? Now I see why!

Band Members Over the Years

does anyone else think the 'Band Members over the Years' feels a little cumbersome and clumsy? The template at the end of the article has links to all 'Current Members' and 'Ex Members' and if various band members' departures and arrivals are explained in the main article then there is no need for such a long section showing the different line-ups over the years. Unless anyone has become especially attached to this section I think it should be deleted. Apart from that, I think the article is ok, plenty of information.

I don't have a huge problem with it either way. It serves as a quick reference to anyone who needs that specific info, I guess. Hiding 12:52, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I think they're useful, and they don't interrupt the flow of the main article.--Crestville 20:28, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, it stays.

Cleanup Tag

Still required? If so, why? Hiding 12:52, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion. Leave the US and UK charting positions in the discography. But move all the CAN, JPN, AUS, etc. number to theire respective album and single pages. WAY too much information being presented at once in that section; it's not a good read. --Madchester 20:22, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the cleanup tag, anyone objects, list details here. Hiding talk 17:27, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Exaggerated Album Sales

Based on looking at the RIAA site and the equivalent for British and European Sales (which i cant remember the links for - i think the british one is the BPI), some of Oasis albums cant have sold so many.

1. Only 1 platinum disc has been awarded for heathen chemistry in europe - no way it could sell 5 million as where would all the other sales be - more accuarate is 3.5 million.

2. Definitely Maybe has sold 4 million in europe - 1 in usa - dont think it could reach 15 million without more sold in usa. More likely around 9 million.

3. Masterplan has probably sold 2 million - it has gone twice platinum in uk.

4. Familiar to millions - no way 2/3 million - it has only sold around 150/200k in uk so no one else around the world would accumulate sales of around 2 million.

5. Morning glory and be here now sales are correct.

6. Sales so far for DBTT seem correct - approaching 2 million soon. Hopefull the release of let there be love will help shift a few more.

If I recall correctly, in the UK, they award Gold, Platinum, etc.... certiifcations for the number of units sold to retailers, not the actual sales by consumers. Like if an album goes platinum, it means that it anticipates that consumers will buy around 300,000 units... so 300,000 units of the album needs to be stocked on British shelves. It's very misleading... if I remember correctly, Robbie Williams' Escapology was expected to be a mega-seller, and stores overstocked the disc to the point that it earned a 2/3X platinum award just a week or two after its release. Actual first week sales were nowhere near that total... a case of supply being far greater than demand.--Madchester 15:21, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Britpop?

Oasis are not Britpop.

Oasis are a British rock band, nothing more nothing less. Labelling Oasis "Britpop" puts them in the same league as Busted and McFly. Should we call Led Zeppelin a Britpop band too because they had major chart sucess? Of course not! I am not a great Oasis fan but I understand the difference between this band and McFly. Popular sucess does not mean they are "pop": Elvis was extremely popular but he wasn't classed as "pop".

I think you've misunderstood. Britpop was a musical genre that was at it's peek in the mid-1990s. It comprised of british guitar based bands such as pulp, blur, the verve, Radiohead etc. Oasis were not only members but pretty much led the movement. Busted and McFly are British Pop bands, not Britpop bands.--Crestville 21:57, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Do You know what i mean?

I'm sure this song was number 1 for 2 weeks. Perhaps the trivia is wrong?

"The Boy With the Blues"?

I think that it isn't a single from Oasis... 24.232.136.43 13:54, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

The Boy With The Blues

Just to point out, Noel didn't actually confirm a release, he just said it was something he think they might do. Nothing is confirmed yet, not publically at least. Mr. Monobrow 01:31, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

NPOV, Quotations & Encyclopedic Tone

I think this article would benefit from a bit of cleanup in terms of tone. There's some mild POV stuff in here, I think, and quite a few places where the language is not "encyclopedic", e.g. "Guigsy" is referred to at one point, when he should probably be referenced by surname. Some of the POV stuff - the band's sound, for example - could easily be retained by using quotes from the NME, BBC, or Guardian online. I'd do all this myself, but there are probably Oasis enthusiasts who could do handle it more sensitively than me. Happy to have a crack if no-one objects, though.

I have mixed feelings about this kind of change - it's nice to read enthusiastic articles by people who likes the band they're writing about - but too much POV detracts from the article's credibility.Rayray 16:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I've made changes to the first part of the article in line with what I've suggested above. What do people think? I'll carry on working my way through the article, and would appreciate some help.Rayray 23:00, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

This article (and other articles on British pop groups) still suffers from a lot of subjective language - immense songwriting talent, for example. It would be good if people working on this article could try to stick to facts, and avoid opinions, or else it will be hard for anyone to take it seriously. I'll try to do a rewrite with this in mind later in the week. --Rayray 12:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Critical approval...

Regarding the following statement from the top... "They maintain a loyal fanbase and a degree of commercial success, although critical approval has eluded them since the release of 1998's Be Here Now." I thought Don't Believe the Truth received favorable reviews from critics. Ucdawg12 23:52, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

You're right, but I suppose I'm trying to sum up the change from "this band are the saviours of British music" c. 1994 to "not bad - better than the last few albums". I think the best way to deal with this is to find a good quotation from a trusted critical source (Uncut, MOJO, or whoever). Can anyone help with this? Rayray 08:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not 100% certain that that's a good way to handle it, but I could well be wrong, so here a two quotes that I have found quickly.

• Don't Believe the Truth, their seventh album, isn't the comeback fans have long been praying for, but it's the first Oasis album in years that doesn't sound like pale self-imitation. from http://www.rollingstone.com/reviews/album/_/id/7331035

• Don't Believe the Truth won't rewrite past mistakes, but it does prove the band isn't through just yet. from http://www.playboy.com/arts-entertainment/music/oasis/

You could also try looking through the reviews for Don't Believe the Truth. --Apyule 11:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Oasis album articles

For some reason the articles on the individual albums only list (at great length) the US chart positions. Surely the British chart positions should be included too? JW 23:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Those are probably slightly more important as well. Bang Bang you're dead 18:24. 6 June 2006 (UTC)