Better:
• Awesome frontman with the right balance of vocal talent and cool attitude.
• Balance of influences; they had the attitude of punk/rock n roll but also just enough musical ability to make sophisticated, Beatle-esque stuff sound convincing.
• When the tunes were great, boy were they great.
• Unlike many bands they were open about their love of older music rather than trying to reinvent the wheel.
• Indie credibility and spirit due to working class upbringings.
• Brought what was needed at the time after grunge - rock music that made people feel good.


Worse:
• Arrogance that didn’t wash with everyone, lost them some respect.
• Although the “good B-sides” thing did boost their credentials, they held back too many good songs on B-sides. Several singles have two or three great B-sides, some of which would have been better on albums.
• Their own worst enemies - if anyone would ruin their careers, it’d be themselves with all the abandoned tours, fights etc.
• Several songs ‘borrowing’ from others hurt their reputation.
•The last few years of Oasis, Liam’s voice wasn’t the best live (although it’s improved since).

yes, I perfectly agree with what each of you say!

I add another "technical" element that penalized them: from 2005 onwards their performances in the tv-shows (which reach a large audience) were mediocre ... from the persistent problems of voice of Liam and to the mix of their sounds that the tv shows don't they never knew how to operate. There they should have made it sound good to capture people's acclaim.

Many people relied only on that to evaluate a band and many of those performances were either in playback or live, but terrible.

I would add that the Oasis management never "pampered" us. For example: In this Quarantine many managers of various bands shared unpublished great concerts on youtube for fans, making a lot of publicity. The managemant of Oasis has always been very scarce (their quarrels were more universally distributed than their music). This is still the case today and this penalizes them a lot. Only Liam solo is dragging some "publicity" to Oasis today. Many people today are knowing and appreciating them more thanks to Liam.

One thing that I've noticed over the last few years is that general attitude in the 90s of "this is the best kind of music, all you need is three chords, like it or fuck off".

Whilst this helped to establish their music of the time, they also shot themselves in the foot with it.

The fans took this attitude to heart, and they've been struggling ever since to break out of this mould. It meant that all they would accept is exactly what they'd already been doing. It stunted any potential evolution. Anything outside a handful of influences wasn't good enough, they'd already found the "ultimate music", so how could it be?

Artists need to evolve, but they barely did, and people got bored after 1997.

Noel's finally broken this cycle over the last couple of years (like it or not), but Liam is still in that mode. I predict that this will hurt his solo career in the long run in the same way it did Oasis.

The problem was that Noel was so infatuated with chart success and also, when they did try something new, everything went to hell in a handbasket or the sessions fell apart. For example,

SOTSOG (More of a trip-hop and electronica influence): Two key band members fall apart as Noel's kicking drugs and a divorce while he and Liam are falling out.

DBTT: Death in Vegas sessions fall apart, back to basics.

DOYS (Drop D riffs, more psychedelic and blues-influenced songs): Goes well until the end when Liam goes and gets married, leaving the album disjointed toward the end, and then Noel gets assaulted during the tour, with all this culminating in the band breaking up after, gee whiz, Noel and Liam fall out one last time.

Noel pushed the band so much to stay in the limelight so just as soon as they put out a new album, they were touring, and then writing and recording for a new album, and repeat for about nine years. They tried hard to capitalize on what would bring them success to where they just got worn out, and any new ideas were tried but met with circumstances preventing them from fully fleshing out their experimentation or met with a changing dynamic in the band or in Noel or Liam's personal lives, so it was just a bad hand they were dealt but they could've played it better by taking more time between albums.

Really, that's what cost the band a lot of their longevity in success post-MG. They didn't give themselves enough time to flesh out their ideas and just jumped into whatever was next whenever. Had they not done that, I think they would've executed BHN better and been more successful and patient with release, after coming out of the '90s.