Oasis v The Beatles

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Personally I think The Beatles released albums that were LOADED with good songs!

Agreed. They were also loaded with absolute twaddle. Oasis albums (apart from the first album) invariably contained two or (max) three good songs, plus whatever the minimum was they could get away with to fulfil their contact.

Neither band is all good or all bad. If you had to score it, I reckon a 4-1 win to The Beatles. But I'd rather go see Oasis anyday.

 

[dougdeep]

I'd rather go see Oasis anyday.

Well they are still alive.

 

[chez]

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.

Ooh Stressy!!!!

I was just pointing out the fact that apart from LSD The Beatles didn't do a single track that I like.

And I do know a lot about music, in fact I'm watching the Eurovision at this very point!!

 

[the right footed denilson]

Oh, and why am I rising to this juvenile comment from someone who probably knows dick-all about music.

It's about personal taste not how much you 'know about music'.

 

[1234andcounting]

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.

Well, I did read Melody Maker from time to time, but never went to the lengths of paying for it. What I was saying, and I used the phrase sine qua non, deliberately, is that The Beatles have had more influence over popular music, and indeed much of popular art, than any comparable artist. This was certainly the case for the second half of the twentieth century; you could argue Chaplin quite credibly for the first half. Oasis, on the other hand, were a reasonably competent pub band, so there is no comparison.

I am not sure how The Beatles were over-indulged apart from maybe five or so tracks on The White Album. Would you care to identify any of the duff tracks they recorded?

The Beatles also acknowledged their sources and were prime movers in, for example, the promotion of Tamla Motown in the UK through their covers of Marvelettes and Barret Strong songs.

I accept that age does play a part in musical choice and that music itself is a matter of personal preference. The poll here is a comparison of Oasis and The Beatles and the simple fact is that there is no comparison. To use a footballing analogy it is like comparing Bobby Zamora or Peter Ward with Damien Hilton or Michael Mahoney Johnson.

 

[1234andcounting]

It's about personal taste not how much you 'know about music'.

Yes, I've acknowledged that. Do you like the Beatles, yes or no. Do you like Oasis, yes or no.

But, who is the better band, Beatles or Oasis? It doesn't bear any argument when you look at the whole picture. Where is Oasis' 'Hard Days Night', for example.

 

[1234andcounting]

Ooh Stressy!!!!

I was just pointing out the fact that apart from LSD The Beatles didn't do a single track that I like.

And I do know a lot about music, in fact I'm watching the Eurovision at this very point!!

M'lud, I rest my case.

 

[Biscuit]

I can only assume anyone who has voted for Oasis hasn't sat down with a Beatles album.. music not made to be listened to for 3 minutes 15 seconds but made to be listened to as part of a whole album.

The Beatles are the best there ever was, no question. They've done more for music than any other band. Hopefully we'll have another band this incredible again, not for a long long while, if ever, I imagine.

Its a bit like comparing Christiano Ronaldo to Chris McPhee!

 

[alan partridge]

The Beatles influence in music is unquestionable.

It does depress me how people idolise them at the expense of other great music though. They aren't the (let it) be all and end all.

Oasis did some good songs. That's about it.

 

[Icy Gull]

If he had lived I reckon Buddy Holly would have been bigger than the Beatles, everyone goes on about how the Beatles influenced and changed music, which they did but initially they were as influenced by Holly as Oasis were by the Beatles. Without Buddy Holly we may never even of heard of the Beatles

 

[jonny.rainbow]

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

You've clearly not listened to much Oasis.

 

[jonny.rainbow]

Yes, I've acknowledged that. Do you like the Beatles, yes or no. Do you like Oasis, yes or no.

But, who is the better band, Beatles or Oasis? It doesn't bear any argument when you look at the whole picture. Where is Oasis' 'Hard Days Night', for example.

Do you know how many Oasis tracks have been used in 90's and 00's film sountracks?

 

[dougdeep]

Do you know how many Oasis tracks have been used in 90's and 00's film sountracks?

No, tell me.

 

[jonny.rainbow]

I can only assume anyone who has voted for Oasis hasn't sat down with a Beatles album.. music not made to be listened to for 3 minutes 15 seconds but made to be listened to as part of a whole album.

The Beatles are the best there ever was, no question. They've done more for music than any other band. Hopefully we'll have another band this incredible again, not for a long long while, if ever, I imagine.

Its a bit like comparing Christiano Ronaldo to Chris McPhee!

Nope. I have every Beatles album and know every single Beatles song. Beatles are good, Oasis are better.

 

[jonny.rainbow]

No, tell me.

Off the top of my head:

Force of nature - Love honour and obey.

Round our way - A life less ordinary.

Stay young - The Faculty

F'ckin in the bushes - Snatch

Don't look back in anger - Our friends in the north (okay not film but fairly mainstream soundtrack)

Jarhead - All around the world

The butterfly effect - Stop Crying your heart out.

Goal - Who put the weight of the world on my shoulders, Cast no shadow, morning glory.

I'm sure there's plenty more as well.

 

[twickers]

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.

Eh? Hold on a minute, Oasis are a Beatles tribute band.

I'm not a big Beatles fan, I do like some of Oasis stuff, but keeping it in perspective Beatles pioneered, Oasis parodied.

 

[jonny.rainbow]

The Beatles were derivative of what came before them just like Oasis.

The Beatles just happened to be the band of the moment when major technological advancements were made in the music/televison industries.

Same with Dire Straits and the advent of the CD and Arctic Monkeys with downloads.

 

[twickers]

The Beatles were derivative of what came before them just like Oasis.

The Beatles just happened to be the band of the moment when major technological advancements were made in the music/televison industries.

Same with Dire Straits and the advent of the CD and Arctic Monkeys with downloads.

You've got a good point there, all the big English rock groups from the 60's were inspired by some form of R&B and it also helped that studios and production were evolving at a rate of knots. However, I think you can hear and distinguish betweem influenced and derived vs parody, tribute and ode.

For me there is a difference between revolution and evolution of music. Oasis don't even pretend to cover up their Lennon worship...from the sideburns, the glasses, the voice, the trumpets and strings...you say you want a revolution? Oasis arn't a revolution. I don't have a problem with that. I don't think the Beatles would have searched so deep were it not for competition like the Beach Boys. I just don't think Blur and Oasis are the same deal. Indeed, early Blur made me luagh becuse of the basic re-work of Hendrix chords...I know because I was doing the same thing.

 

[Half Time Pies]

Off the top of my head:

Force of nature - Love honour and obey.

Round our way - A life less ordinary.

Stay young - The Faculty

F'ckin in the bushes - Snatch

Don't look back in anger - Our friends in the north (okay not film but fairly mainstream soundtrack)

Jarhead - All around the world

The butterfly effect - Stop Crying your heart out.

Goal - Who put the weight of the world on my shoulders, Cast no shadow, morning glory.

I'm sure there's plenty more as well.

Any your point is?!

This is a utterly ridiculous argument, the Beatles have done more to shape modern music than any other band, comparing them to Oasis is laughable.

"We've been compared to the Beatles pretty often. I don't think it's just because the Beatles were better than we'll ever be, but it's still nice to be compared with them, you know. I think they were a far more innovative band than we'll ever be. The Beatles are still my heroes" Noel Gallagher: Interview with Noel Gallagher of Oasis (NY Rock)

 

[NMH]

The Beatles influence in music is unquestionable.

It does depress me how people idolise them at the expense of other great music though. They aren't the (let it) be all and end all.

Oasis did some good songs. That's about it.

Let's take the word 'influence' here, and analyse the Beatles skeletal make-up.
At the foundation, is their own knowledge and influence from their collective musical background - including vaudeville (i.e. Octopus' Garden/Yellow Submarine, Honey Pie etc), blues, rock and roll, soul, pop, and wartime balladeers. That foundation of material between their ears, led to their melding the whole variety-show into one interpretation in one small set of musicians. Take a brilliant and open-minded orchestral sound-stage producer, who could arrange, suggest, and mould the sound they wanted to present - and you have the vital ingredients for the greatest single recording act in history.

Ah, but that's not the whole story, or all the requirements - the band HAD TO include guys who could somehow make sense of their influences and knowledge. Guys who had some experience of taking the songs apart instrumentally and playing them live, who know the beats/bars/timing, and - not least - had the passion in them to get in people's faces, and belt them out with intent.

Ladies and Gentlemen, The BEATLES! (scream, weep, hysteria).

No other band had all those ingredients.