deleted user 785
Striker
Roses, by a mile.
Also Blur were a very good band.
Also Blur were a very good band.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Surely choosing Oasis is like picking The Monkees over The Beatles.
Surely choosing Oasis is like picking The Monkees over The Beatles.
Comparing The Stone Roses to The Beatles.![]()
The Stone Roses debut album is better than anything Oasis ever released. Simples.
Erm, no. I'm suggesting the gulf between Stone Roses and Oasis is the same as the gulf between The Beatles and The Monkees. Called an analogy mate. :roll:
Well it isn't a good one, they're both nowhere near The Beatles and closer to The Monkees.
Well it isn't a good one, they're both nowhere near The Beatles and closer to The Monkees.
Oasis created more of a buzz from their 1st 2 albums and b-sides but 95% of their music after that was shite. So for that reason the Stone Roses win by a mile. Shame what happened to Oasis, The Stone Roses have much more musical depth.
Errr, are you joking? The Stone Roses and the Manc bands that followed dominated everywhere, you couldn't move for pictures of King Monkey.
Was this a serious question from the OP?
Stone Roses > Oasis
Blur > Oasis
Stone Roses > Blur
Hope that helps
I know who is better, I was just interested to see who thought Oasis were. Apparently quite a few![]()
All around about the same age I'd imagine, too young for the Roses. I reckon if I was 14 when Def Mebbes came out I might think the same.