Oasis v The Beatles

[Jimmy Grimble]

Following on from the Aerosmith Bon Jovi thread I thought I'd go with this one, seems to get debated quite a lot on the web and in the pub.

So, who do you think have been a better band over time

Oasis for me.

 

[TWOCHOICEStom]

?? surely no contest?

 

[Albion Edd]

Well I probably like Oasis more, but The beatles are clearly a better band, if it wasn't for them there would be no Oasis.

 

[turienzo's lovechild]

oasis were only good for a VERY short period of time

not a massive beatles fan but they produced decent stuff for longer, without resorting to churning out shit song after shit song

 

[dougdeep]

I think you needed to grow up with the Beatles to realise what an impression they made on music in general. Oasis were little more than a tribute band.

 

[Frutos]

Much as this is probably musical blasphemy, I'd have to say I can't stand either of them.

 

[chez]

The Beatles are the most overated band of all time. Not that keen on Oasis either but Champagne Supernova is one of the greatest songs ever so I'll go for them.

 

[Strike]

oasis were only good for a VERY short period of time

not a massive beatles fan but they produced decent stuff for longer, without resorting to churning out shit song after shit song

Seconded, and as said earlier The Beatles influenced Oasis.

 

[beorhthelm]

i think one of the music magazines had 3 of the Oasis in the top 20 in a poll, but only one Beatles album. i dont understand that. then again, the poll also had the second album from Kaiser Chiefs but not the first and both Keane albums, so im not sure quite who the readership are or how much their opinion should be valued.

 

[Gully]

The Beatles are/were music icons, they pushed boundaries when many were still listening to ballroom music and early rock and roll, they made and set trends in music...many of which still stand today...for me it is like comparing a Ferrari to a Lada.

 

[Deano's Invisible Pants]

Although not a Beatles fan, there is surely no comparison here. Beatles v. Rolling Stones would be a much closer contest - and I'd have to go with the Stones....

 

[Notters]

Is this some kind of sick joke?

 

[NMH]

Oasis were overblown overhyped and....were they ever rated? Okay, over-rated as well.

What a lopsided poll to have really, there's no contest between the whining brats famous for being nasty and only revered in Britain - and the songwriting ubertalents (& comedians) who blew the collective minds of the whole world and made hundreds of outstanding tracks that influenced every musician since.

 

[blue'n'white]

I am not in the slightest way shape or form a Beatles fan and I think Sgt Pepper is the most over rated album i the whole history of rock BUT there really is no contest here. Oasis were/are nothing more than a Beatles rip off band.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Oasis could not have existed without The Beatles. Fact.

On the other hand, both bands should be judged on their finest moments, rather than the 75% filler shit that pads out the albums for both bands. Rough rule of thumb: anything written by Harrison or Starkey for The Beatles was dross, ditto anything ever written by Liam for Oasis, and the same goes for about 75% of Noel's output this century. You'll be lucky to get a single cherishable track on any Oasis album post Whats The Story. But when they were good, they were GOOD

 

[1234andcounting]

The Beatles are the most overated band of all time. Not that keen on Oasis either but Champagne Supernova is one of the greatest songs ever so I'll go for them.

You're joking, right? The Beatles are the sine qua non of modern music - more so than Presley, Dylan, Berry, Brown, Charles or anyone else you could name. Yes, they borrowed from Presley, Holly, early Motown and many other influences, but the way they approached writing and recording has set the template for the past nearly fifty years. If they were so overrated, how come their three principal songwriters enjoyed successful solo careers. Oh, and why am I rising to this juvenile comment from someone who probably knows dick-all about music.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

You're joking, right? The Beatles are the sine qua non of modern music - more so than Presley, Dylan, Berry, Brown, Charles or anyone else you could name. Yes, they borrowed from Presley, Holly, early Motown and many other influences, but the way they approached writing and recording has set the template for the past nearly fifty years. If they were so overrated, how come their three principal songwriters enjoyed successful solo careers. Oh, and why am I rising to this juvenile comment from someone who probably knows dick-all about music.

Blimey! You sound exactly like a reader of the ex-music weekly Melody Maker. Sort of 'I am right, and you are young and/or stupid'. Sorry mate, but that's not how it works. The Beatles recorded shit tracks same as every other band that ever existed. As they were so over-INDULGED, and didn't have to try as hard as other bands, they probably recorded MORE duff tracks than any other band and got a\way with it cos nobody was counting. Oasis properly acknowledged their sources, and recorded a couple of tracks that will live forever in their own right. Like, uh, 'Live Forever', 'Wonderwall', 'What's the Story', 'stop Crying Your Heart Out' etc etc.

 

[NMH]

The Beatles recorded shit tracks same as every other band that ever existed. As they were so over-INDULGED, and didn't have to try as hard as other bands, they probably recorded MORE duff tracks than any other band and got a\way with it cos nobody was counting.

Personally I think The Beatles released albums that were LOADED with good songs - and I'm not really a huge Beatles fan either.

As for "trying as hard as other bands", the sales figures are irrelevant when we are talking about quality of music, and if The Fab 4 weren't even TRYING hard to write decent songs, then I'm seriously afraid for what might have been if they had tried!

 

[dougdeep]

At least the Beatles progressed through different styles of music, Oasis were a bit samey.

 

[NMH]

Oasis properly acknowledged their sources, and recorded a couple of tracks that will live forever in their own right. Like, uh, 'Live Forever', 'Wonderwall', 'What's the Story', 'stop Crying Your Heart Out' etc etc.

On that front, I think you are being kind to Oasis to suggest that a couple of tracks will "live forever in their own right".
The Oasis tracks you mentioned will be forgotten by the following generation.

If you went to just a Beatles tribute band show, and saw the kids at the front mouthing all the words to the songs, the proof that the power and quality of their songs will absolutely outlive them, is right there.

While we are just comparing TWO bands to each other, it might be pertinent to mention that The Kinks (Ray Davies) also out-wrote Oasis, as did The WHO (Pete Townshend) Small Faces, Hollies and several others of that era.
Oasis were, actually, just overblown and over-publicised - partly down to the paucity of competition for headlines.