|
Post by andymorris on Apr 29, 2016 8:39:55 GMT -5
This is so wrong, on so many levels. so wrong. SO Wrong SO WRONG There are few artist throughout time that have had more smoke blown up their asses than Radiohead. I cannot and will not ever understand the appeal of the band outside of a couple of tunes maybe. Well, they were the anti Oasis. And when the pre hipster movement arose in the late 90s, the needed a band. Radiohead was it. They have a few good records let's be honest, but way overrated overall. They got into uncharted territories and try stuff, but to be considered equal to the Beatles, you need more than that. Can't really compare to Oasis as they're both very different band. Still, Thom Yorke could blow into John Greenwood's ass that Pitchfork would call it the best album of the year.
|
|
|
Post by Mean Mrs. Mustard on Apr 29, 2016 8:45:10 GMT -5
Oasis can't be compared to The Beatles.
|
|
|
Post by andymorris on Apr 29, 2016 8:53:34 GMT -5
Oasis can't be compared to The Beatles. I never did. Two complete different band.
|
|
|
Post by Doc Lobster on Apr 29, 2016 10:50:04 GMT -5
There are few artist throughout time that have had more smoke blown up their asses than Radiohead. I cannot and will not ever understand the appeal of the band outside of a couple of tunes maybe. Well, they were the anti Oasis. Radiohead were the anti-Oasis if you only consider a tiny portion of the musical universe (that is, those bands that were massive in the 90s). At the end of the day, Radiohead are just a pop-rock band that happened to make it big by taking some chances when the rest were notoriously conservative. I honestly find it quite funny that some Oasis fans show such antagonism towards Radiohead. It makes me wonder how far away they're willing to stray from the classic rock formula.
|
|
|
Post by glider on Apr 29, 2016 11:06:10 GMT -5
I was taking the piss on Radiohead > The Beatles, but like Doc Lobster said I don't understand the Radiohead hate exactly. The biggest thing between Radiohead and Oasis is that RH kept going in a different direction and more adventurous route with their music. They never have played it safe or phoned it in in my honest opinion after The Bends. People would think they'd already peaked by OK Computer, but instead they went full on into Electronic and came out with Kid A and Amnesiac, alienating even more of their old fans but gaining new ones. What did Oasis do? Well after SOTSOG, which featured darker tones and more textures, they did Heathen Chemistry. Phoning it in big time on the lad-rock side of things, desperately trying to revive Britpop. Evolve or die, and that's what happened with Oasis. Doesn't change the fact that both bands have music that hit me on a emotional level one way or another.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2016 11:13:01 GMT -5
Hey Jude Revolution While My Guitar Gently Weeps Helter SkelterBlackbird Dear Prudence Back In The USSRHappiness Is A Warm Gun I'm The Walrus The Fool On The Hill All You Need Is LoveCome Together Something Here Comes The SunAcross The Universe Let It Be The list of 68-70 Beatles songs I consider as "great songs" (and I certainly forgot some). Only Noel Gallagher from 1994 to 1997 can top that level of songwriting. The Beatles are the best ever but Oasis came close (even more, for me) to that godlike level during the nineties. Apart from the ones I've bolded I find all those songs to be dull. Just my opinion of course, if you get something out of those songs then that's great for you, you can get enjoyment out of some songs that I can't but I find the tone of them just grates on or bores me.
|
|
|
Post by Mean Mrs. Mustard on Apr 29, 2016 11:36:17 GMT -5
Hey Jude Revolution While My Guitar Gently Weeps Helter Skelter Blackbird Dear Prudence Back In The USSR Happiness Is A Warm Gun I'm The Walrus The Fool On The Hill All You Need Is Love Come Together Something Here Comes The Sun Across The Universe Let It Be The list of 68-70 Beatles songs I consider as "great songs" (and I certainly forgot some). Only Noel Gallagher from 1994 to 1997 can top that level of songwriting. The Beatles are the best ever but Oasis came close (even more, for me) to that godlike level during the nineties. Second time quoting you, but why 68-70, actually?
|
|
|
Post by mossy on Apr 29, 2016 14:32:30 GMT -5
All your opinions are wrong!
|
|
|
Post by andymorris on Apr 29, 2016 14:57:48 GMT -5
All your opinions are wrong! yours too ! (and more) But seriously why is everyone obsessed about change and experimeting in music ? Why is "classic rock" (what is that by the way) bad ? Why is Writing a song that will stick with you forever a bad thing ? I respect Radiohead and i like some of their records but Kid A never sent shivers down my spine. Sound collage and experimentation can be nice though, other bands did it better at the time imho. I guess we're looking for something different in music. None of the Oasis record sound the same i still don't understand why people would say Oasis never evolved. They did. Maybe not the way some wanted, but they did.
|
|
|
Post by Flatulence Panic on Apr 29, 2016 14:59:47 GMT -5
OasiBeatles.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2016 15:30:33 GMT -5
Hey Jude Revolution While My Guitar Gently Weeps Helter Skelter Blackbird Dear Prudence Back In The USSR Happiness Is A Warm Gun I'm The Walrus The Fool On The Hill All You Need Is Love Come Together Something Here Comes The Sun Across The Universe Let It Be The list of 68-70 Beatles songs I consider as "great songs" (and I certainly forgot some). Only Noel Gallagher from 1994 to 1997 can top that level of songwriting. The Beatles are the best ever but Oasis came close (even more, for me) to that godlike level during the nineties. Second time quoting you, but why 68-70, actually? Don't know why exactly 68-70 (I could have chosen 65-67) but I was trying to make a comparison of quality between the tunes of the last three Beatles albums and the first three by Oasis. For me, the tunes are similar in quality but what makes the Beatles the best band ever, is that they have a even bigger amount of great songs from the 65-67 period. Oasis came close to The Beatles level during three albums but The Beatles made 6 albums of that level. That was what I was trying to point out. Don't know if my post is clear ^^
|
|
|
Post by jaq515 on Apr 29, 2016 16:22:45 GMT -5
All your opinions are wrong! yours too ! (and more) But seriously why is everyone obsessed about change and experimeting in music ? Why is "classic rock" (what is that by the way) bad ? Why is Writing a song that will stick with you forever a bad thing ? I respect Radiohead and i like some of their records but Kid A never sent shivers down my spine. Sound collage and experimentation can be nice though, other bands did it better at the time imho. I guess we're looking for something different in music. None of the Oasis record sound the same i still don't understand why people would say Oasis never evolved. They did. Maybe not the way some wanted, but they did. i dont think that anyone should look for anything different in music just what they think is good for them / their favourite etc. Try different stuff variety in spice of life etc but ultimately you fav will be your fav. The original post was CR saying he 'thought' oasis were better then the beatles, cos they his favourite. Thats his choice i don't see how anyone can think thats 'laughable' I'd predict out of the whole population of the world 98% of people would say different artists or even type of music etc was their favourite or best. Obv we can all look back at 'impact' and 'relevance to music history' or just put the music on and enjoy for the music itself.. Like say some people / most people will probably like other bands than the beatles, oasis, radiohead etc.
|
|
|
Post by carlober on Apr 29, 2016 16:38:14 GMT -5
i dont think that anyone should look for anything different in music just what they think is good for them / their favourite etc. Try different stuff variety in spice of life etc but ultimately you fav will be your fav. The original post was CR saying he 'thought' oasis were better then the beatles, cos they his favourite. Thats his choice i don't see how anyone can think thats 'laughable'I'd predict out of the whole population of the world 98% of people would say different artists or even type of music etc was their favourite or best. Obv we can all look back at 'impact' and 'relevance to music history' or just put the music on and enjoy for the music itself.. Like say some people / most people will probably like other bands than the beatles, oasis, radiohead etc. Don't get me wrong... I sort of agree with your thoughts, what I meant is that "Oasis are better than band X" and "Oasis are my favourite band" are totally different statements. In my opinion you have to consider relevance/impact on music history when you're discussing who is/was better. On the other hand, if we're discussing about favorite bands history is completely irrelevant.
|
|
|
Post by Let It Bleed on Apr 29, 2016 17:04:41 GMT -5
This is the most relevant thread in the last 50 years.....
God bless.
|
|
|
Post by jaq515 on Apr 29, 2016 17:08:30 GMT -5
i dont think that anyone should look for anything different in music just what they think is good for them / their favourite etc. Try different stuff variety in spice of life etc but ultimately you fav will be your fav. The original post was CR saying he 'thought' oasis were better then the beatles, cos they his favourite. Thats his choice i don't see how anyone can think thats 'laughable'I'd predict out of the whole population of the world 98% of people would say different artists or even type of music etc was their favourite or best. Obv we can all look back at 'impact' and 'relevance to music history' or just put the music on and enjoy for the music itself.. Like say some people / most people will probably like other bands than the beatles, oasis, radiohead etc. Don't get me wrong... I sort of agree with your thoughts, what I meant is that "Oasis are better than band X" and "Oasis are my favourite band" are totally different statements. In my opinion you have to consider relevance/impact on music history when you're discussing who is/was better. On the other hand, if we're discussing about favorite bands history is completely irrelevant. well exactly he's a footballer and probably wasn't discussing the relevance of music circa 1960-2000. He was probably just asked a question and he answered it in an interview and then moved on.. Tho pretty ironic that every answer in interview should be 'considered' on an oasis forum
|
|
|
Post by mystoryisgory on Apr 29, 2016 19:01:30 GMT -5
Fuck this, Beady Eye are better than The Beatles, let alone Oasis or Radiohead.
|
|
|
Post by matt on Apr 29, 2016 20:00:03 GMT -5
Oasis can't be compared to The Beatles. Nobody can compare to The Beatles. That sounds cliched but it's true.
|
|
|
Post by Let It Bleed on Apr 29, 2016 20:42:03 GMT -5
All four Beatlés sang lead vocals on all-time classic songs, no other band can say that. All four Beatlés had very successful solo careers, no other band can say that.
Now, Oasis did have two of the best and most successful debut and sophomore albums, but the Beatles had longevity and never really dropped off, where Oasis did....
But, Oasis are relevant....just kidding.
But it is all opinion.....opinions can't be wrong, unless you're wrong, so....
God bless.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Apr 29, 2016 21:03:28 GMT -5
Cristano Ronaldo said this in 2009. OasisMania has an incredibly annoying habit of recycling stories All. The. Fucking. Time.
|
|
|
Post by Greedy's Mighty Sigh on Apr 30, 2016 0:39:14 GMT -5
I agree with Mr Ronaldo
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2016 13:36:57 GMT -5
The Beatles are worse than Oasis because:
Revolution 9 vs The Quiet Ones = The Quiet Ones
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2016 18:26:56 GMT -5
Oasis > The La's > The Stone Roses > The Beatles
|
|
|
Post by mystoryisgory on Apr 30, 2016 19:26:35 GMT -5
Regarding Radiohead, contrary to what it seems, they've never really abandoned their rock roots. If you take Kid A and remove Everything in Its Right Place, the title track, and Treefingers, you've got a rock album with a few electronic flourishes here and there. Not too different from the stuff on OK Computer.
People may find Radiohead's music as overrated and pretentious, but all they've done is never stayed in one place. They haven't been afraid to change direction. And they've made great music in the process. That's why they've received the praise they've gotten. Oasis, on the other hand, had two great albums, and then couldn't deviate from their usual formula, and started to sound like a pale facsimile of their previous heights.
|
|
|
Post by boneheadsbolero on May 1, 2016 11:40:57 GMT -5
Noel Gallagher isn't fit to kiss Pete Best's ass! Bonehead is though and he needs the money. Pucker up, Bonehead, an ill wind is blowing!
|
|
|
Post by RocketMan on May 1, 2016 11:54:32 GMT -5
All four Beatlés sang lead vocals on all-time classic songs, no other band can say that. All four Beatlés had very successful solo careers, no other band can say that. Now, Oasis did have two of the best and most successful debut and sophomore albums, but the Beatles had longevity and never really dropped off, where Oasis did.... But, Oasis are relevant....just kidding. But it is all opinion.....opinions can't be wrong, unless you're wrong, so.... God bless. Queen! Every member of the band wrote at least one classic. In my opinion they are one of the few bands that really come close to the beatles. But very few people on here seem to like them.
|
|