Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pepper_green
I know what it was about. I understood then got out of hand because it's personal and im thinking in a slightly less pop culture way.
so Smashing Pumpkins was the most hyped for me because im not British. only a handful of peers I knew listened to Oasis and I never had to endure the crappiness of hearing their albums over and over.
all in all, no matter what and based on my opinion, that makes Oasis the better band. or the less hyped. so there.
|
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.