Stone Roses or Oasis?


Status
Not open for further replies.
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).

As much as I love both bands that sums it up well for me

Time has been kind on The Stone roses like, they were pretty much laughed off the seen in 96

But the so called intelligent on here like to look cool so no doubt Oasis will be getting slated;)
 
Well Liam Gallagher based his entire persona on Ian Brown. I'm sure even he would agree that the Roses are the better band.

Oasis were a good band in the 90s but outstayed their welcome by never re-inventing themselves and continuously releasing albums of the same formula for another decade. They kind of became a parody of themselves by the end (which could be argued was a parody in the first instance). They should have split up after Be Here Now.
 
Most talented member of oasis/beady eye wasting away playing the bass

wrong, he plays lead, wrote four or five songs on the album, two of which were 'singles'. (including the latest one, millionaire).

Well Liam Gallagher based his entire persona on Ian Brown. I'm sure even he would agree that the Roses are the better band.

Oasis were a good band in the 90s but outstayed their welcome by never re-inventing themselves and continuously releasing albums of the same formula for another decade. They kind of became a parody of themselves by the end (which could be argued was a parody in the first instance). They should have split up after Be Here Now.

you aware of the song falling down on oasis last album? its different to their usual sound and stands up against their best work from the 90s imo. to say all their songs sound the same is as lazy as the 'everything sounds like the beatles' patter. they were far from being one of the best ever, but nowhere near as bad as some like to say (although it is fashionable to dig at them without thought).

edit: Gallagher might have based his look on Brown. so what? he is a better front man than Brown and his voice (from the 90s) simply blows Brown (and most others of that genre) away!
 
Last edited:
Will be interesting to see who has the better solo career, Noel Gallagher or Ian brown. Like My Way but not keen on browns other albums, Can't wait to listen to Noel's effort.
 
Well Liam Gallagher based his entire persona on Ian Brown. I'm sure even he would agree that the Roses are the better band.

Oasis were a good band in the 90s but outstayed their welcome by never re-inventing themselves and continuously releasing albums of the same formula for another decade. They kind of became a parody of themselves by the end (which could be argued was a parody in the first instance). They should have split up after Be Here Now.

I think that's the key for me. Had they split after two albums (three at most), I think a lot of people would think more highly of them.
 
The masterplan album is some of the best work of Oasis and thats all B sides:cool:

Tunes like

Round our way
Its good to be free
Headshrinker
Acquiesce

All superb tunes and all b sides
 
I think that's the key for me. Had they split after two albums (three at most), I think a lot of people would think more highly of them.

maybe, but if you just do a couple of records and then duff it you cant be classed as a top band. That is why the Beatles are above and beyond the rest, consistentl;y brilliant, even when mucking about. The Roses barely existed by comparison.
 
I think that's the key for me. Had they split after two albums (three at most), I think a lot of people would think more highly of them.

I think they last album is very good, but as always its gets compared to the first two which is harsh

Same as comparing The stone roses first and second albums, the second effort is always going to pale into insignificance compared to the first which is harsh
 
maybe, but if you just do a couple of records and then duff it you cant be classed as a top band. That why the Beatles are above and beyond the rest. The Roses barely existed by comparison.

In that case, Oasis can't be considered anything much either. They did two decent albums at best.

Also, what about Television? Two albums iirc. One absolute classic. Better band than either the Roses or Oasis.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top