Oasis v The Beatles

[Brighton Breezy]

Since who defined a generation and had "made Britain cool" beforehand?

Beyond punk and UK progressive, it was The Beatles actually.

So, since three decades pass and a later band come out, and it's still a question as to who is better, what does that say?

Oh, and oasis "made Britain cool" mostly with Brits. In North America and a lot of other places, it was Nirvana, and no-one gave a thought to oasis aside from a few exiles.

Liam was on the front cover of Vanity Fair draped in a union jack wasn't he?

Oasis played their part in the renaissance of Britain, along with New Labour and artists like Damien Hurst (who I personally don't rate) and designers like Alexander McQueen and Paul Smith.

Also I would argue The Beatles were not as ERA defining as Oasis, The Sex Pistols, The Who or perhaps even The Jam or The Specials.

 

[Buzzer]

Liam was on the front cover of Vanity Fair draped in a union jack wasn't he?

Oasis played their part in the renaissance of Britain, along with New Labour and artists like Damien Hurst (who I personally don't rate) and designers like Alexander McQueen and Paul Smith.

Also I would argue The Beatles were not as ERA defining as Oasis, The Sex Pistols, The Who or perhaps even The Jam or The Specials.

Then I'd say you don't really know what you are talking about. You can't mention the 60s without mentioning the Beatles.

It's been said that the Americans invented rock and roll but the Beatles invented pop.

Anyhow, surely the poll should be betwen Oasis and the Bootleg Beatles?

 

[Brighton Breezy]

Exactly. Invented POP. Well done lads...

Invented pop after a quick costuem change from the leather jacket wearing Quarrymen and then spent the next few decades playing to thousands of screaming teenager girls before disappearing up their own arse.

Perhaps a better comparison would be The Beatles and McFly...

 

[Buzzer]

Exactly. Invented POP. Well done lads...

Invented pop after a quick costuem change from the leather jacket wearing Quarrymen and then spent the next few decades playing to thousands of screaming teenager girls before disappearing up their own arse.

Perhaps a better comparison would be The Beatles and McFly...

Oh dear. Where to begin? Playing to screaming girls? McFly? Quick costume change?

Next few decades they'd split up and one bad member was dead. You don't know a lot about music do you?

 

[Brighton Breezy]

When I was 13 or 14 I LOVE The Beatles. Absolutely OBSESSED with them. Then I discovered bands like The Jam, The Sex Pistols etc with real RAW passion behind their music.

Since then I will always have a fondness for The Beatles but for me, and this sort of discussion is all about personal taste, they don't say enough to me.

I think The Beatles are a great band to get people interested in music before they branch out.

 

[Buzzer]

When I was 13 or 14 I LOVE The Beatles. Absolutely OBSESSED with them. Then I discovered bands like The Jam, The Sex Pistols etc with real RAW passion behind their music.

Since then I will always have a fondness for The Beatles but for me, and this sort of discussion is all about personal taste, they don't say enough to me.

I think The Beatles are a great band to get people interested in music before they branch out.

Make your mind up. Your arguments are all over the place. First you claim that the Beatles weren't era-defining. Mind-blowingly ignorant of the 60s and the influence that the Beatles had on ALL subsequent bands that you appear to be. You then deride pop as if it's inconsequential, you suggest that we ought to compare Beatles with McFly.

You also show extreme ignorance of what the Beatles produced. Go and compare Help with the White Album and they are clearly different bands. In the same time frame did Oasis completely re-define how music would be viewed or are the albums a little bit samey?

Now you're telling us that the thread isn't a debate about anything other than personal taste. In which case why not just say that you prefer Oasis and not try and justify any higher motive?

 

[Brighton Breezy]

Tracks like Tomorrow Never Knows are certainly progressive and, of course, the comment about McFly was tongue in cheek.

I just want more from my music than good, solid pop tunes. For me the music itself is just the tip of the iceberg as far as the very top bands go.

Bands like Joy Division, The Specials, The Jam, Oasis, The Happy Mondays and The Sex Pistols said almost as much from their performance and the roots of their music than their music itself.

The Beatles were a great pop band but quite 2D.

 

[Buzzer]

Tracks like Tomorrow Never Knows are certainly progressive and, of course, the comment about McFly was tongue in cheek.

I just want more from my music than good, solid pop tunes. For me the music itself is just the tip of the iceberg as far as the very top bands go.

Bands like Joy Division, The Specials, The Jam, Oasis, The Happy Mondays and The Sex Pistols said almost as much from their performance and the roots of their music than their music itself.

The Beatles were a great pop band but quite 2D.

Jeepers. If you want bands with great performances then Joy Division are not a great example. They were (eplieptic fits aside) a bit dull live. Hooky and Sumner took shoe-gazing to a fine art and Morris was never the most demostrative drummer.

There are tons of bands out there that, live performance wise, would wipe the floor with the bands you mentioned. Try King Kurt, early Manics, New Model Army, Queen, Damned, Nirvana, Led Zep. One of the best gigs I've ever been to was Hayseed Dixies but I'm not sure I could listen to their music at home very often. If performance is more important (more of the iceberg, in your analogy) then Henry Rollins is better than Dylan.

You are wrong IMO. The very best bands have the best tunes and to name one progressive track on an Oasis album is not quite the same as naming entire progressive albums from the Beatles. I think you're on a hiding to nothing here trying to justify your preferences the way you are.

 

[Brighton Breezy]

You are wrong IMO. The very best bands have the best tunes and to name one progressive track on an Oasis album is not quite the same as naming entire progressive albums from the Beatles. I think you're on a hiding to nothing here trying to justify your preferences the way you are.

The song I MENTIONED, i.e. Tomorrow Never Knows, is a BEATLES song...

 

[Buzzer]

The song I MENTIONED, i.e. Tomorrow Never Knows, is a BEATLES song...

Apologies. I was getting my wires crossed and misread your post. I read it as some obscure re-worked cover version that Oasis did of the Beatles song.

In which case, though, you really ought to go back and listen to the Beatles again if I now re-read your original response correctly. Whole albums by the Beatles were progressive. Along with Pet Sounds, Sergeant Pepper COMPLETELY changed music. They were the yardsticks that everyone then measured themselves against. Can't get more progressive than that.

 

[dougdeep]

I find that most people stick up for albums from their teenage years. Someone of Richie's age can't really know what effect the Beatles had on the teenagers of the Sixties.

 

[Brighton Breezy]

I find that most people stick up for albums from their teenage years. Someone of Richie's age can't really know what effect the Beatles had on the teenagers of the Sixties.

I think you have hit the nail on the head.

For me, bands like Oasis were the soundtrack to the time I really discovered music.

All I know about the Beatles is from old news reels, listening to their albums and reading books. I can't possible FEEL what it was like to listen to them in the 60s etc.

I remember someone telling me the first time they heard The Sex Pistols on a mate's record player it was like WOW. Now the first time I heard them I was impressed but, having heard what went after them, I could never be truly blown away.

Kids these days probably have a similar argument about Oasis vs The Arctic Monkeys or Oasis vs The Libertines etc.

 

[Buzzer]

I think you have hit the nail on the head.

For me, bands like Oasis were the soundtrack to the time I really discovered music.

All I know about the Beatles is from old news reels, listening to their albums and reading books. I can't possible FEEL what it was like to listen to them in the 60s etc.

I remember someone telling me the first time they heard The Sex Pistols on a mate's record player it was like WOW. Now the first time I heard them I was impressed but, having heard what went after them, I could never be truly blown away.

Kids these days probably have a similar argument about Oasis vs The Arctic Monkeys or Oasis vs The Libertines etc.

In which case, you'd probably be better off not showing your ignorance by claiming that the Beatles weren't era-defining or that Joy Division gave great performances.

I'm not the type to get snobby about music unless it's x-factor/westlife type cover versions that bring nothing new to the table. If that's your preference because Oasis speak to you then fair enough. I was just trying to say that your attempts at a higher justification on grounds of influence, performance whatever are gonna come a cropper because the Beatles were undoubtedly one of the most important bands of all time.

 

[Brighton Breezy]

In which case, you'd probably be better off not showing your ignorance by claiming that the Beatles weren't era-defining or that Joy Division gave great performances.

I'm not the type to get snobby about music unless it's x-factor/westlife type cover versions that bring nothing new to the table. If that's your preference because Oasis speak to you then fair enough. I was just trying to say that your attempts at a higher justification on grounds of influence, performance whatever are gonna come a cropper because the Beatles were undoubtedly one of the most important bands of all time.

As opposed to showing your ignorance by thinking Tomorrow Never Knows was an Oasis song eh?

Or labelling someone ignorant for not agreeing with you...

For me, The Beatles were a good band and of course an important band. BUT I can't say I find them era-defining or as influential as someone like David Bowie or The Who.

 

[Half Time Pies]

Liam was on the front cover of Vanity Fair draped in a union jack wasn't he?

Oasis played their part in the renaissance of Britain, along with New Labour and artists like Damien Hurst (who I personally don't rate) and designers like Alexander McQueen and Paul Smith.

Also I would argue The Beatles were not as ERA defining as Oasis, The Sex Pistols, The Who or perhaps even The Jam or The Specials.

Congratulations for making the most ridiculous comment of this whole thread. Although there were obviously many seminal bands of that era the Beatles were the 60's.

 

[Buzzer]

As opposed to showing your ignorance by thinking Tomorrow Never Knows was an Oasis song eh?

Or labelling someone ignorant for not agreeing with you...

For me, The Beatles were a good band and of course an important band. BUT I can't say I find them era-defining or as influential as someone like David Bowie or The Who.

I know it's a Beatles song. I already told you that I thought that you were referring to an Oasis cover of it and somehow this was a "progressive " Oasis move. 'Strewth.

And I call you ignorant of the Beatles because of comments about them not being era-defining, comparing them to McFly, saying that they were 2D, for implying that inventing pop is not a particularly big achievement, for not knowing that they changed the music and the culture of an entire generation GLOBALLY,s.aying that Joy Division's performances were the greatest

See, you've done it again. As great as the Who are how in blikenty flip can you claim they are more era-defining than the Beatles? How?

In fact don't bother. You've already said that you don't get the Beatles or understand their influence because you weren't there - then you go to claim that the Who were more era-defining. If you weren't there for the Beatles then you weren't there for the Who, were you?

Give it up, Richie. You're going round in ever decreasing circles.

 

[NMH]

Tracks like Tomorrow Never Knows are certainly progressive and, of course, the comment about McFly was tongue in cheek.

I just want more from my music than good, solid pop tunes. For me the music itself is just the tip of the iceberg as far as the very top bands go.

Bands like Joy Division, The Specials, The Jam, Oasis, The Happy Mondays and The Sex Pistols said almost as much from their performance and the roots of their music than their music itself.

The Beatles were a great pop band but quite 2D.

Joy Division - not at all famous or revered (outside of NME and Manchester) until long after the lead singer had died. Depressing and 'dark', and dressed in grey and black.
I went to see them at the Electric in London, with three other bands on the bill (Certain Ratio/DAF/Scritt Politti) Easy to wander to the front, and quite a sparse crowd really.

Specials - ska reggae tribute band. Quite timely, for the mod revival.....
..... that The Jam were a big part of. The Jam were a self-confessed Who tribute, interpreting what they'd done 13 or 14 years before. The WHO were particularly interesting in that generation who were too young to have been there in '65, and these people were loving what Quadrophenia said to them. Previous generations never cared so much about the previous one - I mean who was buying Sinatra and Pat Boone ten years later?

Happy Mondays - spokespeople for the lazy, slacker generation. Will 'baggy' music be revived? Please no. It had its' moments.

Sex Pistols were at the spearhead of British punk, alongside Eddie and The Hot Rods, and The Damned. Kids needed a movement, and got it in punk. The disintegration of that scene spawned some of the better bands, as punk was about let's burn-out and die scum and we don't caaaare.
A musical movement that was needed, to kick YES up the arse for Topographic pomposity, and wipe the blackboard clear for INDIE bands to grab their chances. Out of there came Cure/Echo/Teardrop Explodes/Magazine/Factory Records/Simple Minds/U2.

 

[NMH]

I think you have hit the nail on the head.

For me, bands like Oasis were the soundtrack to the time I really discovered music.

All I know about the Beatles is from old news reels, listening to their albums and reading books. I can't possible FEEL what it was like to listen to them in the 60s etc.

I remember someone telling me the first time they heard The Sex Pistols on a mate's record player it was like WOW. Now the first time I heard them I was impressed but, having heard what went after them, I could never be truly blown away.

Kids these days probably have a similar argument about Oasis vs The Arctic Monkeys or Oasis vs The Libertines etc.

Same went for me with 50's rock and roll.
Elvis, Buddy Holly and Chuck Berry didn't represent anything but America, and an excess of brylcreem. It looked old-fashioned in the sixties. The Beatles eclipsed Roy Orbison and Everly Brothers, but - not the impending Motown soul sound. Somehow that was separate, and ran alongside the Merseybeat era. The Isley Brothers had cut 'Shout' in 1959, well before 'Twist and Shout', and although the relation between Merseybeat and rock 'n roll was evident throughout the early beat era, the doo-wop and rockabilly sound was doomed.

Looking at old vids of the Rockers though, suddenly I could appreciate the feral nature and adrenal appeal.
Seeing it brought life to it.

Blues and soul has endured throughout the last century, right from gospel and negro spirituals onward. Imo, that's not to be sniffed at!

Elvis didn't sniff at it, as it was what he was singing and performing. Little Richard was ahead of him too, raunching-up the gospel to devilish proportions. A gay black man with pompadour putting his foot on a classical instrument and screaming sexuality? Don't let little Martha see it, it's filth!

[yt]jBTakXapwiE[/yt]

 

[NMH]

Better dobie that music for the white kids - take it Elvis;

[yt]iEqcPZfh8fY[/yt]

 

[NMH]

Gee willakers, check out that boy's moves George - it's so..... well!

Don't look Mildred, that sort of thing is the devil's way to steal our children away to SIN


[yt]UK15EQFh3TM[/yt]