Who is the better band, The Beatles or Oasis?

[tdn]

@Gagundathar

Yes, but are they bigger than Jesus?

In order of biggity:

The Beatles
Jesus
Klaatu
Oasis
Boxcar Willie

[GargoyleWB]

I did a relistening of them recently, having literally not heard one of their songs for 10 years since their 90s heydays.

Oasis were well-crafted pop without lasting appeal or legs. Pure derivative and, while catchy, brought nothing new to the "britpop"genre. They really fall flat on vocals, which sound whiny and rough, dated to the 90s post-grunge style of singing.

The Beatles, OTH, have very solid and timeless playing and structure, and were true pathfinders of the genre.

[Exapno_Mapcase]

@tdn

In order of biggity:

The Beatles
Jesus
Klaatu
Oasis
Boxcar Willie

It’s true that Jesus was a little Jewish guy who probably loooked like Moe Howard while three of the four Beatles were six-footers. I guess the real question is, was Ringo bigger than Jesus?

[WordMan]

Captain Midnight, did you get what you need? Any serious counter-arguments to the basically fully-pro-Beatles input from the SDMB? Any insights about what led you to post the OP to begin with?

[Chronos]

Note that it’s not always ludicrous to ask “Who’s better, X or the Beatles”, depending on the value of X. If, for instance, one were to ask “Who’s better, the Beatles or the Rolling Stones”, I think most folks would probably still say “The Beatles”, but it’s not the same kind of blowout it is here.

[kidneyfailure]

@MTCicero

So then … wouldn’t the Beatles be your favorite band of all time?

No, because I like Oasis more than I like the Beatles. But just because I enjoy Oasis more than I enjoy the Beatles doesn’t mean Oasis is a better band than the Beatles.

[Autolycus]

Captain Midnight, I don’t believe that anybody feels the way you do about Oasis.

[Starving_Artist]

@Starving_Artist

Yeah, that was the general consensus, that SD’s hired guns were far more proficient on their instruments but that Becker and Fagen simply weren’t in the Beatle’s league when it came to melody and variety of style. I know what you mean. They have a tendency now to make little alterations to a note or two that IMO don’t always work. For example on Home At Last there is originally a part in the line “and now the danger on the rocks is surely past” where there is a simultaneous bass/drum/symbol beat right after “the” that I just love and which really punctuates the tune right there. For some reason they changed it, at least in the performance I linked to above, to a sort of “doo be doo” sound that almost wrecks the whole damn thing for me. I on’t know why they do this, maybe because of musician or singer limitations (though I doubt it) or maybe just to try to change things up a bit and keep their performances from becoming monotonous. But these little changes can really take you out of the groove when they’re so completely different from what you’re expecting. Other than though, I think they do an excellent job overall of blending the talents of their current lineup with the work of their musicians of the past. Jon Herington’s work on Kid Charlemagne would be a good example of this. He doesn’t copy Larry Carlton’s work note for note but puts his own spin on the song which, while very similar, still sounds great on its own.

Another problem is that the sound on that particular clip isn’t very good. There used to be another clip of the same performance that sounded a lot better but I couldn’t seem to find it.

Just thought I’d return to the thread to mention that I in no way meant to imply that neither Steely Dan (in whatever configuration) nor the show I linked to upthread nor the rendition of Home At Last I referred to are anything less than kickass, because they most definitely are.

Tight ‘bare midriff’ section, too.

[salinqmind]

I’ve heard OF Oasis, but I doubt I could identify any of their songs even if I was about to win the jackpot on a game show.

[Hippy_Hollow]

@kidneyfailure

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!

I’m pretty much the same here, though I don’t have much of their stuff post-Standing on the Shoulders of Giants. I saw them at the Liberty Lunch in Austin in '94. There were less than 30 people in the room but Liam acted like he was playing Shea Stadium, attitude-wise. (Yes, he behaved like a complete c***.)

But they just happened to hit commercial success in the UK and a rivalry with Blur in the mid 90s, which made them HUGE. I was in the UK in '95, and I can’t recall any band being more omnipresent than Oasis. The B-sides from Definitely Maybe were getting airplay. But they lost the plot musically, and got much less interesting. Basically people thought they had another Definitely Maybe or (What’s The Story) Morning Glory? in them, and they came up with Be Here Now.

I agree with those who say that if you were alive and moderately into music in the mid-90s in America, you should be very familiar with Oasis.

Commercially massive and masters of the football terrace anthem, but not even the best band of that era. Blur and Supergrass were scads more talented and diverse in their musical talents, but Oasis had the chords and the front. But they never got better than their second album, and pretty much coasted to their demise, despite Noel’s promises that the next album was going to be massive.

Liam might post in this thread. Noel would have asked the mods to close it out of embarrassment.

[Lust4Life]

Whos better to listen to ?

Me playing comb and tissue paper or Queen?

Well you started it!