Stone Roses or Oasis?


Status
Not open for further replies.
Comparing The Stone Roses to The Beatles. :lol:

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:
 
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.
 
Without the Stone Roses there might not even have been an Oasis (now there's a thought ;))

The Roses made one of the best albums of all time and were then fucked over by record labels and internal squabbles

Oasis released an excellent debut and follow up then became a parody of themselves.

Roses every time for me.
 
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.
 
never really thought about it but Stone Roses quite comfortably were better. tho i could listen to both for a long, long time and not tire of them.
 
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?
 
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?

I know who is better, I was just interested to see who thought Oasis were. Apparently quite a few :eek:
 
Roses only did one good album. Oasis at least two.
Liam Gallagher can/could sing really well live, Brown couldnt/cant.

I do think the first Stone Roses album is superb but they were just a studio band. The Roses didnt produce anywhere near enough (werent around long enough) to be acknowledged as a great imo and were not a patch on Oasis as a live act. (Got several dvds/cd bootlegs and their live sound is woeful).
 
Last edited:
I know who is better, I was just interested to see who thought Oasis were. Apparently quite a few :eek:

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.
 
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.

I was too young for the Roses as well. Grew up loving Oasis. Got older, found more music. Realised Oasis were a bit of a shit (covers) band and there was much better out there, including the Roses. Its a simple matter of quality.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top