Probably my favourite Beatles record too - that or Abbey Road. McCartney totally owns this album - I love all his tunes.

There's not one bad track on it - probably Within You Without You or Being For The Benefit of Mr Kite. I don't think Lennon is up to the quality of McCartney on this one, in my opinion, Lucy In The Sky fades in comparison with other tunes on this album, though his contributution on She's Leaving Home is a highlight of the album and really makes that song stand out. I really really like When I'm Sixty Four - it's a great pastiche on Victorian English Music Hall, so understanding it in that context helps me appreciate that song more. Also, when Sgt Pepper is a psychedelic take on the old northern English park bands, it's an ideal tune for the concept too. All of McCartney's contributions

But it's this album that makes me highlight McCartney's somewhat underrated contribution to The Beatles (in comparison with Lennon). Always thought he held it all together in The Beatles, even if at the times he was unbearable for the rest of the band. Again, if Lennon had his way, Abbey Road may have be full of avant-garde crap of the likes he was making with Yoko Ono. McCartney ensuring quality control - along with George Martin - in addition to ambition.

Says it all when only one Beatles album provokes more discussion on its quality than the whole Oasis post 90s output. Noel was probably the one most willing to experiment and look forward in Oasis - you can tell by some of his songs when comparing with the rest of the band. However, being surrounded by luddites left, right and centre in the band and the production team, he would be fighting against a tide. Probably getting Andy Bell and Gem Archer on board was probably one of the biggest mistakes I feel - neither of them offered anything to Oasis, and they seemed only obsessed with music from the 60s and 70s. I'm worried that the boat might have sailed for Noel and experimenting now.

I know,you never know if he's being serious or not 

Terrible.

Bullshit, my frendah. With Gem Oasis sound wa s better - more riffs, complete solos, better chords.

Probably my favourite Beatles record too - that or Abbey Road. McCartney totally owns this album - I love all his tunes.

There's not one bad track on it - probably Within You Without You or Being For The Benefit of Mr Kite. I don't think Lennon is up to the quality of McCartney on this one, in my opinion, Lucy In The Sky fades in comparison with other tunes on this album, though his contributution on She's Leaving Home is a highlight of the album and really makes that song stand out. I really really like When I'm Sixty Four - it's a great pastiche on Victorian English Music Hall, so understanding it in that context helps me appreciate that song more. Also, when Sgt Pepper is a psychedelic take on the old northern English park bands, it's an ideal tune for the concept too. All of McCartney's contributions

But it's this album that makes me highlight McCartney's somewhat underrated contribution to The Beatles (in comparison with Lennon). Always thought he held it all together in The Beatles, even if at the times he was unbearable for the rest of the band. Again, if Lennon had his way, Abbey Road may have be full of avant-garde crap of the likes he was making with Yoko Ono. McCartney ensuring quality control - along with George Martin - in addition to ambition.

Says it all when only one Beatles album provokes more discussion on its quality than the whole Oasis post 90s output. Noel was probably the one most willing to experiment and look forward in Oasis - you can tell by some of his songs when comparing with the rest of the band. However, being surrounded by luddites left, right and centre in the band and the production team, he would be fighting against a tide. Probably getting Andy Bell and Gem Archer on board was probably one of the biggest mistakes I feel - neither of them offered anything to Oasis, and they seemed only obsessed with music from the 60s and 70s. I'm worried that the boat might have sailed for Noel and experimenting now.

Bonehead was also good for band chemistry, like Gem. and Guigsy didn't cause drama like how Andy didn't.

i think that was there main contributions along with probably holding the drugs until the band was popular enough to have female groupies, and then the female groupies held the drugs and maybe the groupies played on some songs, it was the 90's after all and the cocaine was everywhere. for all we know, Beady’s Here Now played bass on 'Cast No Shadow'...

God bless.

i think Andy and Gem were hired for a reason - to go with the flow, basically.

here's a comparison: Brian Jones was fired from the Rolling Stones and Eric Clapton was rumored to replace him, but Mick and Keith didn't wanna give up that much creative control, which makes sense, but man, that would've been interesting to hear. it probably would've eventually turned sour with all that creative input, similar to the Beatles, though.

instead the Stones brought in Mick Taylor who added solos and color to the songs, just like Brian Jones did; Brian jones didn't really write any music and/or didn't come up with the genesis of any songs - Brian did the xylophone part on 'Under My Thumb' and i think he did the sitar part on 'Paint It Black', both great contributions.

like theyknowwhatimean kinda said, Oasis weren't really looking for more important input and Noel probably didn't want anymore. i always thought Gem played the Ronnie Wood role in Oasis more than anything, being good for a healthy band dynamic, getting along with everyone and Andy didn't cause any drama, so all was well.

someone else said in this thread said Andy and Gem were brought in to improve musicianship but that's not saying much, Bonehead and Guigs were very average musicians, especially Bonehead, he only played barre chords for christ sake. and while Noel's a great songwriter and coming up with chords, he's not the best lead player by a long stretch.
I've said on the forum a couple years ago, any second year music student could play any of the parts for Oasis songs, but that doesn't mean they aren't fucking awesome songs.

anyone who wants to play music i tell: get a cheap acoustic guitar, a guitar tuner and learn the parts to Nirvana and Oasis songs because the songs are mind-numbingly easy but are catchy and amazing songs.

anyway, i'm rambling - it's time for my afternoon nap, the coffee has officially worn off from the morning.

God bless.