They wouldn't have made it onto a Stone Roses album
They would imo and they never made it onto any Oasis albums
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.
They wouldn't have made it onto a Stone Roses album
is there a bigger cunt on this planet than ian brown? seriously, his arrogance is astounding.
He's a moron then.
I've changed me mind, its The Las.
Noels interview i have from 1995.
Interviewer spots beatles badge on his coat
"whats with the badge?"
"best band ever"
"who the second?"
"oasis"
They wouldn't have made it onto a Stone Roses album
Standard Gallagher bragging.
Why not google the quotes about how The Stone Roses inspired Noel to join a group or the quote about how Oasis would be nothing without The Stone Roses.
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.
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.
Roses and Oasis both absolutely epic in there own special ways for me.
I think the Roses picked up the baton for UK Indie music and Oasis ran with it.
And to me, Oasis put out one and a half great albums (together with a very good set of B-sides) then duffed it. TBH, given the length (in album terms) of both bands careers and a much more valid question would be "The Stone Roses" or "Definitely Maybe"?
if ya put best 20 from oasis against best 20 from the roses i think the 90s lot would win without doubt.
and?
i even know Liam said it was watching Brown on stage that made him stand up to a mic.
there is a difference between being inspired and being better.
the beatles will have been influenced/inspired by someone but there is no one better than them ever.
wrong, he plays lead, wrote four or five songs on the album, two of which were 'singles'. (including the latest one, millionaire).
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!
Justin Bieber![]()
What the fuck is this obsession nowadays with bands supposedly needing to reinvent themselves for fear of becoming 'a pardody of themselves'??
What were they suppose to do, release a reggae album?
Nee wonder you get all these fannies jumping on the bandwagon of every single latest fresh new "amazing 'cos Zane Lowe told me so" band that comes along. :roll:
Of course there are better bands than the Beatles. Perhaps not bigger though.
Oasis are undeniably, though probably unwarrantedly huge. Just because they have a bigger back catalogue doesn't make them better either.
no one better than the Beatles for me.
three of the best song writers in one group.
No it wouldnt.
Morning Glory is a quality album, with many songs being better than Roses stuff. (in my opinion).
Masterplan (Oasis album of b-sides) is also brilliant.
Face it, the Roses benefitted from not being able to do it for long. They did one really good album and thats their whack. They couldnt even do that album justice on a stage. (Brown being the main reason of course).
I'm aware of that song and its hardly a change in direction. They released a few decent songs later on but the general direction was exactly the same. At the end of the day they were content with releasing a sub-standard album every couple of years knowing it would sell, then doing a sell out stadium tour to make a few million each (fair play to them, plenty of mugs bought into it for nostalgia reasons). It was clear they were going through the motions (summed up by the hostility on stage), and its where i lost a lot of respect for them.