there are always people out there with a tenuous grip on reality.

I'm not bothered about either of them, but Oasis rock whereas the Beatles, regardless of their numerous other attributes (let's remember, folks, they invented everything - hahahahhah) don't.

The Beatles, innovative, original, consistent etc etc etc
Oasis, poor man's Bootleg Beatles. The Rutles did it so much better.

I never got the sense with Oasis that they were out for anything other than a good time and to make enough money to get out of Burnage. There's nothing wrong with that, but there's no artistry there, no soul and certainly no comparison with The Beatles.

I say again, I like Oasis, but you have to accept them for what they are, a one dimensional pop/rock band. The Beatles gave us every style of music usually within one album, and could rock harder than Oasis when they chose, Helter Skelter, Taxman, Revolution......
I suppose what I am saying is don't knock Oasis, they are what they are but they are certainly not The Beatles which is nothing to be ashamed of after all, no one is.

but sometimes exciting and as individuals very funny. The Beatles thing is a blind, people love THEM - maybe actually that's the similarity

why should The Beatles mean more to a 15 year old in 1995 than Oasis did? And why should that 30 year old now disagree with his 15 year old self?

is summed up in your last sentence.

As Ahh_Bisto notes, I loved Oasis more when I was 15 and have never really recovered. But yes, Champagne Supernova or Shock Of The Lightning give me as much thrills as any Beatles record.

I recognise that the Beatles are 'better', whatever that means, but I enjoy listening to them equally and judging from my iTunes play counts, they get about as much play as each other.

I'm all for innovation, boundary pushing, crossing genres and so on, but it's not the be all and end all. It's not a science experiment, I just like the songs that Noel and Liam write as much as the Lennon and McCartney ones.

Plus Oasis rock much harder which is a big tick for me

I think we've reached the stage where the linear narrative that so many of us grew up with - largely as it unfolded - has been lost. Put it this way: a young person is familiar with Oasis and at some later date hears a band that, in some respects, is a sort of anaemic echo of the things they like about Oasis. How is it going to compare? A meaningful comparison would require them to make the effort to reverse engineer Oasis. Not likely is it?

are not the beginning, nor the end of music and are mentioned far too much for my liking.

As we all know, music like comedy (and many, many other things) is subjective. An internets savvy youth outnumber us old farts, Oasis mean more to them than the HJHs.
That's all, don't fret. I prefer Bauhaus to the Beatles but that's just my thing.

Bela Lugosie is still dead

When Oasis first came to my attention they were a breath of fresh air after years of dancey crap. However, through them I discovered the Beatles and promptly stopped listening to their output. Their first album was very good (though hardly original) their secon less so and then....If anyone really beiieves that Oasis are better then the Beatles then they should be banned from having children. The problem would soon wither.

.

...but at least the HJH's music has wit, detail, texture and variation. Oasis are just meat-and-potatoes plodrock, except for the few songs where Noel was struck by inspiration. They've had their moments, but not too many of them, IMO, and they're hopelessly samey.

I never, ever, ever understood The Beatles comparisons. Aside from the "All Around The World" video.

by The Beatles (The Oasis 15-Year Remix)

between 1979 and 1981 I may prefer Oasis too.
Most people are stuck with what was important to them as teenagers.
That's why I still love Free.

A they had fired Liam Gallagher early on. Painful to listen to, and whining vocalist. Must have been thousands of people more suited, that would have done a better job of recording those songs.

B they had concentrated on musicianship. Actually being able to PLAY would help. Its for this reason that as performances, even the best of their songs fall hugely short of the Beatles. Covers of their songs are often better than the originals - (for example, Ryan Adams version of Wonderwall). This never happened with the Beatles, because they knew intuitively that sensitive delivery was an important part of the process.

They had one asset really, Noel's song, and specifically his tune writing ability.

It's interesting how much of a nonentity Oasis is in the U.S. I think you'd find a tiny tiny proportion of people born between 1979-81 who would even mention Oasis in a top 10 list, let alone argue they were "better" than the Beatles. That just seems like a ludicrous claim.

Purely anecdotal evidence but today, for example, I was reading a great thread on avclub.com, called "Favorite Album Deep Cuts" and the question was basically, "What songs from your favorite bands do you wish people knew better?" There were more than 1,000 comments, with people naming literally thousands of songs from dozens of bands (loads of mentions of Beatles, Led Zep, Radiohead, etc. etc). I read the entire thread (cause it's fun) and I don't recall Oasis being mentioned once. Not once.

..it's a fact.
Many people (in the U.K. of course) who were teenagers through "britpop" rate Oasis higher than The Beatles.
I'm sure there are as many people born in 1960 who think the same of The Clash.

anyone dance to Oasis?

...how much effort people go to on here to denigrate Oasis

If you don't get it, you don't get it. Don't get your knickers in a twist - you missed the party. Move on!

Q. Noel are you, or are you not 'A Fookin' Genius?'
A. 'Course I fookin' am.
Q. Liam, were Oasis one of the best bands of all time, comparable only with The Beatles?
A. 'Course we fookin' were! 'Ang on... were... whaddaya mean were? Fookin' Live Forever, man... Fookin' Paul McCartney... I could 'av 'im! Name the time and the place... (Goes on in this vein for some time, most of the 90s, actually, until physically restrained...)

the Beatles are rubbish, they can't even spell their name correctly

are way better than both of them.

Hope this clears things up.

at the heart of this argument here, and it's one I find fascinating.

I don't feel there's any real doubt that, on every musical level, the Beatles are better than Oasis. In fact, the jury retired so long ago on this one I'm not even really interested in getting into an argument about it.

So I think the answer is something more subtle: basically, Oasis followers relate to Oasis music different to the way Beatles followers relate to Beatle music.

I'll stick my neck out here and offer the theory that with Oasis music there is a fairly large element of "I could do that!" when you hear an Oasis song. I mean, that the music and the people who are delivering it are so run of the mill and laddish that you feel as if they are "one of us". How many Oasis fans feel they would jump at the chance to join them on stage, and that they would be able to play along to all the songs just fine?
With Beatle people, I would say there is more of an element of hero worship, that the people who get serious about Beatle music are in awe of the craftmanship and quality of the playing. How many Beatle fans would shirk from joining them in a jam session, would feel "not worthy"?

Just a theory. I'm happy with anyone who wants to shoot me down or offer a counter argument!

...is which acts they are better than. Most acts pale in comparison to the WHP hitmakers. They're probably not as good as The Stones either. Lady Gaga and Ke$ha are getting more play on my ipod right now.

But off the top of my head, Oasis are better than oooh....U2, The Killers, Neil Young, Bruce Springsteen, Kings of Leon, Pink Floyd, Fleet Foxes, Midlake, Jeff Buckley, The Jam, Steely Dan, The Velvet Underground, King Crimson, Portishead, Muse, Dumpy's Rusty Nuts, Mishka, Bogshed, Northern Uproar and of course, that Richard Thompson fellow (obviously).

And that's an actual fact, so don't go arguing now...

... I wouldn't have such a problem with Oasis if they weren't so popular - not that that would make their music any better, just that it reminds us all that most people "out there" just aren't that interested in music, and that's where our "snob-value" manifests itself, in basically assuming "Anyone who likes Oasis (certainly anyone who likes them more than The Beatles) simply hasn't heard enough music."

I have the first 2 albums and they get fairly regular play, but their lack of (musical) ambition and the end of the decent tunes saw my interest drop off a cliff after that (though to be fair, "Dig Out Your Soul" was their best since those days...)

is better than anyone when it comes to music. So, LastFM's survey is pointless and to question why is pointless. However, it is obvious that the music that means the most to people growing up is usually made by current (and alive) bands and thank god for that otherwise nothing would move on. I wonder sometimes if those that grew up in the 60's are have a little chip on their shoulder about their 'bands' being forgotten and won't let the generations that followed forget it.

It's impossible to state, as fact, that one band is better than the other. I prefer The Beatles simply because they produced a handful of records that rank amongst those I've most enjoyed, whereas Oasis only managed one (Definitely Maybe). Oasis's more recent records don't really appeal to me, though I still admire their clothes, haircuts and 'patter'. Noel in particular I find funny, sharp and intelligent.

The Beatles were mostly innovative and Oasis have copied elements of their style. Whenever the Beatles launched something it was news because they were invariably doing something different. Oasis always seemed to be fighting or moaning (if all of them turned up at all).

The Beatles were professionals, oozed personality and all had real talent. Oasis always struck me as posing as a better group than they actually were. A couple of decent albums early on, but hardly a back catalogue to set the world on fire. The Beatles back catologue, however...

I'll stop here in the realisation that making the comparison is just too pathetic.

in any more Beatles debates but couldn't resist. Both bands are now consigned to history in as much as neither will release new material. Frankly although not being a massive fan of either the Beatles wiped the floor with Oasis but that doesn't mean they have to be fawned over like they were God incarnate. They made some blistering songs - they also made some complete bollocks and rather too much of it for my liking. When they were good they were exceptional - when they were bad they were exceptionally bad. I think too many people obsess about them. I love current music, I love old music, I love music by plenty of dead people too. However, I get the impression many people on her look to the Beatles as a precious museum piece. There is plenty of new music worthy of our attention for christ sake.

a mate of mine at school always swore that the Monkees were far better than the Beatles "because they had lots of different songwriters." Having said this, he liked starting arguments as a hobby.