Fucking exactly

How did anyone say Smashing Pumpkins didn't suck just because we said Oasis were more nauseating?

Now the truth is come out. It was never a lesser of two evils, BOTH suck. Its ok you kinda like or at least tolerate a band we think sucks, i surely listen to a lot bands y'all think suck. But to be sure, Oasis is garbage and yes, they were pretentious narcissists

No, the point was to identify which of these bands was the most overhyped BUT it was implied that they both sucked to the point of not worth listening to. Again its all good if you konda like Oasis, i will only moderately hold it against you ;)

To be honest, I would have never clicked on the link to this story if it wasn't for this thread......if you've taken time to post, take the time to read it:

SEVEN GRANDMOTHERS WHO ROCK HARDER THAN NOEL GALLAGHER

I get what you're saying, but if you'd spent more time in the UK, I think you'd see that Oasis was definitely more "hyped" than the Pumpkins. They're definitely the less nauseating band. The Pumpkins were just offensive, even when they were making catchy songs.

But the thing about the Pumpkins is that they were never really THE band. Well, maybe for the year of Mellon Collie. But even then there were plenty of bands experiencing equal levels of success. They were post-Nirvana scavengers.

Oasis was just utterly fucking massive in the UK for a long time. Their first two albums made them THE band in the UK, and they had a more prominent "it" phase than the Pumpkins did.

And yeah- Soundgarden made some good songs. I even like Down on the Upside a bit. But they were really on it during the pre-mega fame "Sludgegarden" years. They have a handful of singles that just kicked ass. You wouldn't think it to look at them now, or Chris Cornell's heinous solo career, or that awful Audioslave. But that band was good for a time.

why cant we all realize that all alt rock sucks and the only good bands vaguely related to it are ones that are noise pop bands in disguise?

none of you people should punish yourself with this mediocrity. i know it might seem fun for a while but its really not. its bad and deep down you know it

Hmm. See, that's not what I'm about. Saying "all (X) sucks; only (y) is good." It's never that simple and that's where the worst kind of snobiness comes from.

But that seems really obvious to me, as I'm sure it is to most people.

I actually prefer keeping an open mind, and being open to accepting any sound that makes my ears and brain feel nice. Anyone who's following rules about what they should or shouldn't like is almost definitely missing out on a hell of a lot of good music. And nothing is that absolute. I don't generally like super basic alt rock either. In fact, I'm not really interested in it at all, but "The Day I Tried to Live" is an excellent song. My ears would be a little bit less happy if I didn't give myself the chance to realize that.

*shrug*

yeah that is a genuinely good song

What irrated me most in Oasis in the nineties was that sounded so "Beatles updated into nineties" when I saw their Live Forever -vid in MTV. And I really don´t mean Oasis was ever even near of greatness of Beatles. I just mean I have always think it´s very boring to do same thing in music someone has already done. Maybe they have catchy songs but I don´t care. Never liked also their later stuff.

In Smashing Pumpkins it´s Corgan´s voice that has irrated me and still does. Never find also nothing interesting from their music.

I think in Finland there was much more hype around Oasis, I think all the music magazines just said how great they were. Never understood it. Smashing was just part of the grunge.

Agree fully. Never listened Superunknown whole through and I think I never will, but that song is the best Soundgarden song (Badmotorfinger is ok album).

About grunge the only bands I really liked then were Nirvana, Mudhoney & Hole. Still listened them sometimes. But SY was already then faaar greater!