Sorry if I'm offending any Lenny Kravitz fans here, but this annoyed me. I was reading an internet discussion of overrated acts and a bunch of posters basically agreed with the assertion that Oasis is "the British version of Lenny Kravitz" - safe, harmless, some good songs, but just a group that reminds you of better songs that these songs were ripped off of.

I'm not someone who insists that Oasis is the greatest band ever or the greatest band in history. But I think there is a CLEAR difference between Lenny-Kravitz style aping and Oasis-style homage. I'll admit that some stuff on BHN and HC was very derivative (though I like a lot of BHN nonetheless), but if you're judging Oasis by their 1994-1996 output, which is how they ALWAYS are judged, then it's obvious that Oasis is nowhere near as blatantly derivative as Lenny Kravitz.

DM and MG clearly show their influences, but the sound is completely Oasis' own. If you're going to call either of those "faceless retreads" then you'd better at least be consistent and call Nirvana's Nevermind and The Strokes two albums "faceless retreads" too. I love those latter albums. Nobody says they're derivative, even though their influences are as apparent as Oasis on DM or MG.

Now, that's MY take. I'd like to read some of your responses. If someone told you that Oasis were just a "glorified covers band" or "the British Lenny Kravitz" what do you say to them?