Oasis v The Beatles

[jonny.rainbow]

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)

That specific point was in reference to the argument that Oasis had not produced anything of the quality of the A Hard Day's Night.

The Beatles influenced what came after them just as Oasis' influences are identifiable in current music.

 

[1234andcounting]

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

Hmmm. You've missed the point, here. Hard Day's Night - the movie starring the Beatles, directed by Richard Lester with a screenplay written by Alan Plater, very often held up to be the best of its type (ie, a movie based around a band/singer) and quite revolutionary in cinema terms, too. Did Oasis do anything similar; if so, I must have missed it. I wasn't referring to Beatles songs used in movies, although if we want to go there, just off the top of my head, there have been two movies based entirely on Beatles music (Sgt Pepper, 1976 and the more recent Across The Universe, although I won't vouch for their artistic worth).

The only point I am making is that there is just no comparison between The Beatles and Oasis; indeed, Oasis just don't come anywhere near the top 20 of all-time great British rock bands (just British and bands, so excluding Bowie for example, or Kate Bush), coming imo below the following, in terms of invention, musical ability, stage presence, broader artistic contribution etc, so broadly comparing like with like:

The Beatles
The Rolling Stones
The Who
The Kinks
The Yardbirds
The Small Faces/The Faces and Rod Stewart
Pink Floyd
Cream
Led Zeppelin
T Rex
Roxy Music
The Clash
The Sex Pistols
Joy Division/New Order
The Specials
The Smiths
Radiohead
Blur


They, at best, come someway down what I would describe as the second tier of British rock bands (and if this doesn't start a posting punch-up.....)

The Animals
The Move/ELO
Deep Purple
Black Sabbath
Buzzcocks
The Damned
The Stranglers
The Jam
Elvis Costello and the Attractions
Slade
Manic Street Preachers
Verve

 

[1234andcounting]

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

Hmmm. You've missed the point, here. Hard Day's Night - the movie starring the Beatles, directed by Richard Lester with a screenplay written by Alan Plater, very often held up to be the best of its type (ie, a movie based around a band/singer) and quite revolutionary in cinema terms, too. Did Oasis do anything similar; if so, I must have missed it. I wasn't referring to Beatles songs used in movies, although if we want to go there, just off the top of my head, there have been two movies based entirely on Beatles music (Sgt Pepper, 1976 and the more recent Across The Universe, although I won't vouch for their artistic worth).

The only point I am making is that there is just no comparison between The Beatles and Oasis; indeed, Oasis just don't come anywhere near the top 20 of all-time great British rock bands (just British and bands, so excluding Bowie for example, or Kate Bush), coming imo below the following, in terms of invention, musical ability, stage presence, broader artistic contribution etc, so broadly comparing like with like:

The Beatles
The Rolling Stones
The Who
The Kinks
The Yardbirds
The Small Faces/The Faces and Rod Stewart
Pink Floyd
Cream
Led Zeppelin
T Rex
Roxy Music
The Clash
The Sex Pistols
Joy Division/New Order
The Specials
The Smiths
Radiohead
Blur


They, at best, come someway down what I would describe as the second tier of British rock bands (and if this doesn't start a posting punch-up.....)

The Animals
The Move/ELO
Deep Purple
Black Sabbath
Buzzcocks
The Damned
The Stranglers
The Jam
Elvis Costello and the Attractions
Slade
Manic Street Preachers
Verve

 

[NMH]

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.

Dire Straits were famous well before cds came out. You could only argue that their collusion with MTV was fortuitous in helping their career.

Arctic Monkeys are synonymous with an age-group around 12 to 17, as they are expressive of their kind of angsts. They don't do many things well, but they do one thing well in appealing to them, and that's their platform. In the USA and previously to AMs, it was Green Day who did that.

Sorry but I can't agree that the Beatles "just happened to be" anything. That's making them trite and incidental to timing and aging technology - and that is NOT why kids are still mouthing the words to all their songs long after the technology and a plethora of other music has been and gone.

 

[jonny.rainbow]

Dire Straits were famous well before cds came out. You could only argue that their collusion with MTV was fortuitous in helping their career.

Arctic Monkeys are synonymous with an age-group around 12 to 17, as they are expressive of their kind of angsts. They don't do many things well, but they do one thing well in appealing to them, and that's their platform. In the USA and previously to AMs, it was Green Day who did that.

Sorry but I can't agree that the Beatles "just happened to be" anything. That's making them trite and incidental to timing and aging technology - and that is NOT why kids are still mouthing the words to all their songs long after the technology and a plethora of other music has been and gone.

Sorry but I'm going to disagree.

Kid's mouth, or rather are made to mouth, the words of Shakespeare. But if it weren't for the advent of the printing press during his lifetime that wouldn't be the case.

Invent it 20 years earlier or later and the world would have a different greatest ever playwright.

 

[Dover]

Just a quickie. How many Beatles songs are chanted at football grounds around the country, compared to Oasis tunes.

The Beatles have made some awful rubbish, and I was having exactly this conversation yesterday, and I used Abbey Road to show that even that album has a couple of poor tracks. But judge them on the majority of their output, and they outshine most of their counterparts, let alone some newer bands.

 

[NMH]

Sorry but I'm going to disagree.

Kid's mouth, or rather are made to mouth, the words of Shakespeare. But if it weren't for the advent of the printing press during his lifetime that wouldn't be the case.

Invent it 20 years earlier or later and the world would have a different greatest ever playwright.

You mean; IF Shakespeare hadn't existed!
Your point is reliant on changing history - IF Buddy Holly hadn't existed the Beatles might have been different, but they were influenced by him. Holly was PART OF a movement called 'Rock and Roll', and he existed as integral to that time and sound.

The Beatles were practically a movement unto themselves.

Kids don't get "made to mouth the words" of The Beatles!
They don't get "made to" learn those words, or go see Beatles tribute bands, or play the cds or leave the radio on a station playing their songs.
My age includes a lot of other music, and I suppose I know a lot of other songs by a variety of people from Vera Lynn to Lonnie Donegan and Tommy Steele to King Crimson to Magazine and Joy Division to Supergrass to I Am Kloot and Maximo Park. I 'could' mouth songs by those artists, and know lyrics - but their impact on musical history is almost insignificant
If Oasis are a blip on the radar, The Beatles are a land mass where the radar is mounted!

 

[jonny.rainbow]

Just a quickie. How many Beatles songs are chanted at football grounds around the country, compared to Oasis tunes.

Is that really an accurate way of judging music quality? Tone deaf football fans.

Other artists who are sung at football:

Black Lace.
Chas and Dave.
Dave Clark Five.

 

[Dover]

Is that really an accurate way of judging music quality? Tone deaf football fans.

Other artists who are sung at football:

Black Lace.
Chas and Dave.
Dave Clark Five.

Not trying to judge music by what is sung at matches, but these are tunes that have become part of the nations make up.

 

[withdeanwombat]

Dross v Gold.

 

[jonny.rainbow]

You mean; IF Shakespeare hadn't existed!

No I don't.

I mean Shakespeare's work is readily available because a group of people who appreciated it spent time and money collating, printing and binding it.

A lot of plays from that era and before are known of, but not about, because they weren't printed. It doesn't mean the quality is inferior though.

Similarly, if the introduction of the four-track hadn't coincided with The Beatles first entering the recording studio, would it have been them catapulted to stardom or someone else?

 

[jonny.rainbow]

Not trying to judge music by what is sung at matches, but these are tunes that have become part of the nations make up.

I'd argue that you'd be hard pushed to find anyone in the country that couldn't sing along to Wonderwall, Cigarettes and alcohol or Don't look back in anger.

 

[NMH]

No I don't.

I mean Shakespeare's work is readily available because a group of people who appreciated it spent time and money collating, printing and binding it.

A lot of plays from that era and before are known of, but not about, because they weren't printed. It doesn't mean the quality is inferior though.

Similarly, if the introduction of the four-track hadn't coincided with The Beatles first entering the recording studio, would it have been them catapulted to stardom or someone else?

Comparisons as dismissive as those can only illicit similar response, so;

What would Vera Lynn have been, without World War II?

[yt]cHcunREYzNY[/yt]

 

[NMH]

I'd argue that you'd be hard pushed to find anyone in the country that couldn't sing along to Wonderwall, Cigarettes and alcohol or Don't look back in anger.

One country, and lots of people can also sing along with "My Old Man's A Dustman" - in one country.

People ALL OVER THE WORLD can sing along (enthusiastically) to The Beatles, even though the songs weren't even in their language!!

My case is well and truly rested, and actually I see little point in even comparing oasis to The Beatles.
Okay, one more comparison;
The Beatles are food, and oasis are shit.

 

[DJ Leon]

Ooooooh, it's a close one.

If you're an idiot.

 

[jonny.rainbow]

One country, and lots of people can also sing along with "My Old Man's A Dustman" - in one country.

People ALL OVER THE WORLD can sing along (enthusiastically) to The Beatles, even though the songs weren't even in their language!!

My case is well and truly rested, and actually I see little point in even comparing oasis to The Beatles.
Okay, one more comparison;
The Beatles are food, and oasis are shit.

Go on Youtube and search for Oasis in Brazil, Japan, Spain etc and watch the videos of people singing at the top of their voices to every lyric.

Then do the same for the Beatles and..... oh yes...... that's right there's NOTHING, because they COULDN'T play 90% of their stuff live.

The Beatles are an overcomplicated recipe in a book, OASIS are a meal laid out in front of you.

 

[coventrygull]

Don't think you can compare the 2 both great in their own time. Even though I prefer Oasis. Whats the next poll The Jam v the Enemy

 

[NMH]

Go on Youtube and search for Oasis in Brazil, Japan, Spain etc and watch the videos of people singing at the top of their voices to every lyric.

Then do the same for the Beatles and..... oh yes...... that's right there's NOTHING, because they COULDN'T play 90% of their stuff live.

The Beatles are an overcomplicated recipe in a book, OASIS are a meal laid out in front of you.

The Beatles couldn't play live because the adoration for them was dangerous and so loud that there wasn't any point in them playing their instruments and exposing themselves and others to that. People were climbing fences to get to them before, after, and during their appearances. Their minders, theatre security, roadies, and police were getting hurt!

That, you poor deluded person, is a FACT.

oasis were liked in America, but - mostly by the exiled British people.
If they played Los Angeles, the majority of the audience were local Brits.
It's a bit like England playing in World Cup games - much of the audience would be English. The Beatles played for The Whole Wide World squad, at that time EVERYONE was their fan!

You will have to come to terms with it johnny, oasis are relatively insignificant to music, and if they hadn't existed no-one would be any the worse-off for that (the argument might be that we'd be better off, in actuality).

 

[Icy Gull]

Ooooooh, it's a close one.

If you're an idiot.

Is without doubt the correct and most succinct answer

 

[vegster]

Surely this is Yin-Yang ?...... without one we could not have the other ?.... you are comparing like and like ...... I prefer The Wombats !