They tried to make out they were as good as "The Beatles". They weren't even as good as "The Rutles"

The Oasis manager was at the game on Sat-sat in club Wembley no surprisingly

Exactly what I was going to post

Stone roses > oasis.

Smiths > Oasis

etc

Black Lace > Oasis

Liam gallagher=knob.
the band did some good stuff,notably when Liam was nowhere near the microphone,basically he cant sing,cant play the tambourine in sync to the music and is a straight forward Ian Brown rip-off.
Will now disappear into oblivion,with the odd appearance on,I'm a non-entity,get me in there and celebrity come dancing on quicksand.

The xbox version of that video is alot funnier.

Most versions of that vid are better.

Oasis, yawn lol music for manchester chavs

I'd argue that The Stone Roses only recorded about 10 or 12 great songs. That they only managed two albums adds to their allure, in my view. Oasis have produced at least as many great songs - though that they have been spread over a much longer (in terms of albums) career would seem to dilute their status somewhat. Noel Gallagher didn't help himself either by chucking away a fair few good tracks as 'B-sides', while filling some of his albums with rubbish.

I thought they split years ago.

Never liked them much after Sgt. Pepper anyway.

The problem is with bands like Oasis and the Stone Roses, is that because they are so musically limited, their lifespans will always be very short before they begin to sound stale and uninteresting.

Oasis got 2 albums in before most people realised they were a 1 trick pony, the Stone Roses even less (though they craftily went missing for a few years in order to further a dying career).

The Beatles, because they were musically gifted, were able to prolong their careers, and produce music that often broke new ground and gained them new admirers....Similarly, in recent times Radiohead have managed to do the same thing.

Yes, many folk are put off by their miserablist reputation, but 7 albums in, with all being different to their predecessor, I would challenge anybody that they can't deny they haven't produced at least 1 great album, whether it be the traditional rock of 'The Bends' or the more recent, more experimental stuff like 'In Rainbows'....

Radiohead have produced one great album and one good one. The others are either unlistenable or willfully bizarre...

And so you prove my theory....

And I'm guessing the two you cite as great and good are 'The Bends' and 'OK Computer'??.....

The point is, and the reason they are respected within the music industry, is that they refuse to take the easy option and just regurgitate their commercial, 'easier-listening' stuff and instead try to come up with something different, even if it does alienate a large proportion of people, who seem to prefer straight forward, rather dull (in my opinion), trad-rock music.