So that makes them better? Just to clarify, your definition of better is populairty/quantity sold?

Heavily influenced by LSD would be my bet.

This thread is quite amusing - that people still have debates like this in the 2010s as if Oasis and the Stone Roses are still as important as they were in the 1990s!

I liked Oasis when I was a teenager in the 90s. However, the more I found out about music, the more I realised that they didn't have any attributes of a great band. Definitely Maybe is still a good album but their failure to innovate or match it on later releases is a poor legacy. All Oasis had that many other derivative britpop acts of the 90s didn't was that extra bit of swagger and posturing that won them a place in lad culture and lots of sales. Musically they are completely unremarkable. I can understand why people like them, but the same applies to the Spice Girls, who were presumably more commercially successful at the time.

I'm in exactly the same boat. I remember walking into a pub as a 16 year old underage drinker in the mid 90s to the sound of Don't Look Back in Anger and the whole pub were singing along. And there ends my reminiscence of Oasis. They were anthemic songs at the time but I'd never sit and properly listen to an Oasis album these days, maybe just stick it on for old time's sake while I made breakfast. My soundtrack to the 90s would be a whole different beast.

Hope not Liam's voice is shot.

Listened to their early back catalogue again the other day.

Definitely a single's band.

Oasis just a poor mans shed seven as I used to say to my oasis obsessed mate to wind him up