how does DOYS beat out IR with that type of review?

An interesting idea with a very, very predictable outcome, I'm afraid. To me (and probably 99% of this forum), Oasis are better because of their style, philosophy and swagger alone (are there any Radiohead songs that instantly make you feel like you're on top of the world?) - not to mention that I dislike the way Radiohead actively try to be an "artistic" band.

I agree with every word in this post. Both R.E.M. and the Smiths manage to pull of the "introvert" songs better and both have more dimensions than that (not saying that Radiohead doesn't) - R.E.M. has classic, fast, melodic guitar rock songs and the Smiths, well, they're the Smiths.
Oh, and Thom Yorke is a way worse frontman than Morrissey, Michael Stipe or Liam Gallagher. (If this sounds like I hate Radiohead, I really don't - I just don't think they're as good as they're made out to be.)

At the moment, Radiohead are leading Oasis 10-5 on the Radiohead message board.

Selected comments:

"Oasis are a pretty decent bar band."

"i wonder who will win between the best british band and the worst british band "

"I'll probably never listen to Radiohead again, but I might listen to an Oasis song or a playlist occasionally."

Interestingly, the comments here are far more analytical than the ones on the Radiohead website. Enjoyed reading why it is that some of you love Oasis over Radiohead.

On some days, SOTSOG and Kid A - both 2000 and 4th album releases - are my favourites by the two bands, because they sounded different from what had come before and promised a bright future for both artists.

I don't like both bands follow ups Heathen C and Amnesiac, both were massive Let Downs bar 1 or 2 keepers (Pyramid Song, SCYHO) but Pulk-Pull Revolving Doors.. what the shit was that?.

Although King of Limbs largely sucked, bonus tracks like Supercollider and Daily Mail prove they still have the talent to create great catchy rock music, when they feel like it.

What about Staircase? That is one of their best songs from the King of Limbs era. Fantastic live track as well. Last I read Radiohead isn't really into the idea of making albums anymore. They want to release singles and EPs moving forward. I know they worked at Jack White's studio in Nashville for an upcoming single release. I'm hoping it is for Identikit and Skirting on the Surface.

If I had to compare them chronologically:
DM vs. Pablo Honey
Winner: DM
Morning Glory vs. The Bends
Winner: Morning Glory
Be Here Now vs. OK Computer
Winner: OK Computer
SotSoG vs. Kid A
Winner: Kid A
Heathen Chemistry vs. Amnesiac
Winner: Amnesiac
DBTT vs. Hail to the Thief
Winner: DBTT
DOYS vs. In Rainbows
Winner: Draw

Essentially tied, but I prefer Oasis.
Musically, I'd give the upper hand to Radiohead, if only because their music asks for a more complex approach. Jonny Greenwood is, to me, one of the greatest guitar players of all time. I'll give Noel the fact that he can right a catchy riff and solo and can put together some great chord progressions, but he cant really compare.
In a live setting, I'd put them on equal ground. Both were pretty fantastic (Oasis in 2008 and Radiohead earlier this year). Liam is a great frontman, but Thom has a wider vocal range. I suppose having Noel sing some of the tunes adds a more dynamic approach.

In the end, I just like to listen to Oasis more. That's about it. I don't really feel the need to compare the two as they both represent important parts of British musical history. It is nice to see a Radiohead thread that doesn't incessantly bash them, but rather offer some meaningful conversation. Well done everyone.

And, just to say, as much as critics like to name Radiohead the most forward thinking, innovative bands, etc. I really feel like that title should go to the Beastie Boys who did more to predict future trends, change their sound up album to album, and have a gold standard when it came to consistently releasing great records.

As I said before - the exact same things could be said about R.E.M. and the Smiths, and both do have exceptional frontmen. Those two would probably make for better comparisons to Radiohead, and I don't think Radiohead would win against either.

I have never understood the fascination people have with Radiohead. They never did anything for me. But then again, I tend to prefer bands that don't try too hard. Radiohead always comes across as trying to hard to write music. To me music is about a feeling, a groove, which is many time immediate and instant. Oasis always have that instant feeling to me. Radiohead never gave me that.

Also, I think Creep is the worst song I've ever heard. Not sure why, but that tune irks me to no end. It is like nails on a blackboard to me. I don't hate Radiohead, but I don't go out of my way to hear them either.

I just love how Radiohead's original lineup is still intact since they began in 1993. They also do very little interviews, never slag off anyone and never really toot their own horn. The press did that since they are huge critical darlings. They also always kept things interesting and fresh with every release. I can't say that was true with Oasis post 1997. Each album was fragmented for various reasons. Dig Out Your Soul is a perfect example. The first half is brilliant, the second half was lackluster. A lot of that has to do with the quality of songs selected. Gotta go with your best tunes. Oasis has been my favorite band since 1995 but I gotta give much respect to the genius that is Radiohead and their live experience.

Everyone goes on about how Radiohead carefully craft their songs. I don't care much for that, I really don't. Classical music is carefully crafted but far more emotional too.

Like I mentioned with Paranoid Android, it's a brilliantly crafted piece of music - but that's all it is. Live Forever is straight forward, comes from the heart and pours emotion over the listener. Paranoid Android comes from all in the head, no heart or soul to it at all, and essentially, music is the sound of emotions. Radiohead fall flat on their face more than most.

And another reason why I can't take them seriously is because they are so serious and po faced. Thom Yorke seems like the sort of guy people would deliberately avoid in the pub because he is so serious and miserable, with no sense of humour. There are moments when Oasis had a bit of fun in their songs, The Beatles did, The Smiths always had a bit of humour, REM aswell, The Rolling Stones too, etc. Many of their songs do provide a somewhat 'comic relief' effect with some lyrics. I'm not saying I go to listen to bands to have a laugh, but it's human nature that we are attracted to those who don't take it all so seriously... and we're more human for these qualities aswell. I for one cannot stand people with no sense of humour - it's like talking to a brick wall, and Radiohead are the musical equivalent of that - I just can't get through to them, and as a result, I don't care for them.

Many songs of theirs do deal with personal subjects, but as I and TheResurrection have said, many other bands do it so much better. A lot of Radiohead's songs deal with, as spaneli said, growing discontent with the technological world and politics - this is once aspect I couldn't care about. I can't emotionally connect to political songs - I think Bob Dylan's best songs are nonpolitical, as with U2. This is not to say I don't care for current affairs - I'm in my final year studying Politics and International Relations. It's a great interest of mine, but music is something which is meant to switch me off from the world outside and let me bathe in my own thoughts. I realise it is the world we live in, but I want bands to reflect my world and my world only, and what is unique to me - this is what music is about, projecting my thoughts into sound.

The reason I write so much on this is because a lot of Radiohead fans (who are one of the main reasons to put you off this band - the self proclaimed hipster brigade) claim you're not intelligent enough to like them and that you only like three chord pop with simple lyrics - what they see as Oasis for example. Of course, this is what the narrow minded would think. I think as this thread shows, there are plenty of constructive and rational arguments as to why Radiohead just aren't as good as they are made out to be.