[jaysay]

Originally Posted by shakermaker

Why is this so difficult to comprehend?

He said that Oasis were the last of the 'big British bands' to really enter society and take over a generation. Beatles, Stones, Who, Queen, Feelgood, Clash, Pistols, Jam, Bowie, Roses, Smiths etc... it all ended with Oasis.
This is mainly because the music industry is so different. Oasis were the last band for the analogue age of music fans who were into 'proper British bands with instruments' that bought albums and went to gigs. Everything is in a 99p iTunes single now.
This doesn't go to say that Oasis are/were better than any of the other great British bands (as that is all down to taste), it only says that they were the last to make such an effect.
This is exemplified in the bands he mentioned that are trying to make success in the new millennium, such as Arctic Monkeys, Kasabian and U2, who, if you did your research, you'd see he has been very complimentary of.

18 years since their first album, 16 years since their 'peak', 3 years since their break up, and their popularity is being debated. I think that proves the point in itself. I'll leave it there.

Think my point is Shaker that Groups such as the Beatles are stil revered 50 years down the line, The Stones are Still going as are Quo, don't think the Gallagher brothers will still be thought of in 50 years time