What’s your point? Nobody is claiming otherwise.
The point is that people that grew up with Beatlemania often can’t imagine any other band as more than a local curiosity because “Nobody will ever be big like The Beatles.” And yes, plenty of people in this thread seem to think Oasis was some bar band who managed to have a hit two towns over.
But it is possible to be popular while still being less popular than The Beatles and during the mid 90s, Oasis was a very popular band. Saying “I’ve never heard of them, so they obviously weren’t very popular” is a hallmark of people who grew up in the 60s. As someone who did not, the reverence for the 60s drives me up the fucking wall.
I don’t really see anyone in this thread saying any of these things. My initial response was to someone who couldn’t believe that a poster hadn’t heard of Oasis. Millions upon millions of people have never heard of Oasis.
Don’t we already have a thread about Gallagher going on? 
Anyway, Oasis is my favorite band of all time. I own their complete and total discography including import CDs, original demos, white labels, and all kinds of shit. I have seen them perform more times than I can remember, I have met Noel (briefly), I have flown to different continents to see them play, I have argued with Blur fans over the greatness of Oasis, etc etc.
Still, they’re not better than The Beatles. They were better than any of the other 90’s Britpop acts by a fucking mile. But better than The Beatles? Puh-lease!
My money is on the high.
Like many here I own multiple releases of every Beatle song ever produced. Conversely, I’ve never heard of Oasis, don’t recognize the song titles and won’t play youtube links at work. My vote then… well, obviously I’m not able to do so objectively.
That’s what I asked several years ago.
Overheard from a coworker’s phone conversation:
“Yes he was. Dude, you’re wrong. He was too! Of course he was! He absolutely was! Dude, you are so wrong! Hold on, I’m going to ask someone who knows. Hey tdn, Barry Manilow used to be a member of Jethro Tull, right?”
Liam Gallagher once said that Teenage Fanclub were the best band in the world before he corrected himself and called them “the second best band in the world”. So the obvious answer to this question is “The Beatles were the best band in the world, followed by Teenage Fanclub.”
And for those of you who are wondering why Teenage Fanclub might get this honor, Nick Hornsby once said that the world is divided into two groups, people who love Teenage Fanclub, and people who have not yet heard of them.
66 Replies, over 1,000 Views and the OP has not returned to the Thread once.
And people are still asking if this is a joke?
Of course it’s a joke . . . and I know one person is laughing his ass off.
Oasis was okay, I guess. I think I had one of their CDs, but they weren’t anything special.
This has nothing to do with “reverence for the 60s.” Other acts have occasionally been in the same league as the Beatles with respect to popularity – Elvis, Frank Sinatra, Madonna, Michael Jackson, etc.
You could make a case for Prince. Lady Gaga aspires to be that big, and maybe she will be.
Oasis is nowhere close to that league. Britney freakin’ Spears is is a bigger league than Oasis. Lawrence Welk was bigger than Oasis ever was.
It’s a tough one. The Beatles are pretty tiresome and overblown, while Oasis are largely an energetic Beatles tribute act. I say it’s a nil-nil draw.
Yes, it’s annoying at times, especially to children of the '70s/'80s like me.
Still, it’s not exactly unfounded.
So then … wouldn’t the Beatles be your favorite band of all time?
I think the OP’s drugs have worn off by now, and he’s ashamed to show his face in this thread again.
After seeing Paul on Saturday night, I’d say that ONE Beatle (with four backup musicians) is better than Oasis.
I grew up in the 60s but I have heard of Oasis. I like their music, can hum “Champagne Supernova” and “Wonderwall,” and have listened to complete albums. I even know about their big feud with Blur and the whole Britpop scene of the 90s.
That makes them a pretty big name. But I agree with those who say that Oasis was never a fraction as big a deal in the U.S. as in the U.K. They were huge in the U.K. All their albums, except the last, went to #1 and set records for fastest selling.
In the U.S. the only moderately big album was (What’s the Story) Morning Glory? That hit #4. “Wonderwall” went to #8 as a single. It and “Champagne Supernova” did go to #1 on the Modern Rock charts, though. At best you can say that Oasis was a big deal for a short while among a certain segment of U.S. rock fans. Overall, culturally, they got far more press because of their internal fighting than for their music. None of the rest of the Britpop bands made any more than a small dent in America (though I have a Supergrass album) so you have to say that Oasis towered over all their competitors of the day.
Oasis had two good albums. You could also say that about Nirvana. Nirvana was far more important culturally and musically in America than Oasis. Was it a better band? I don’t have an answer. They’re too far apart to compare.
But for all those who are dissing the boomers: Oasis in America was not that big a deal compared to all the homegrown stuff that dominated radio and TV at the time. Pop was far bigger than rock in the 90s in any case. Under you were paying attention, anyone who wasn’t a certain age could easily have missed the small blip that Oasis made.
The argument in Britain would be entirely different. Oasis meant something there. Here it’s a top 500 band. Huge difference.
Yes, but are they bigger than Jesus?
They’re not even bigger than Fred Phelps.
I wonder if the OP is also " another poster who is wondering what the punchline is and thinking this has to be a joke somehow". He hasn’t been back to explain, or laugh… or to apologize.
Or maybe he’s working on his next thread: Bach or Yanni?
This, because even Oasis themselves would vote for the Beatles.