which is the better band? good reasons only.

the beatles. i don't even feel the need to give you a reason. they just are.

as you know maggie, i prefer the beatles. they're more wholesome. the stones are dirty and evil. there are certainly plenty of moments where i'd listen to the stones over the beatles, but i was also weaned on the beatles. when you know a band's catalog back and forth it's hard to get excited by it. honestly, i'd choose the kinks over both of them. i'll probably take that back in a week, but i can relate to what ray davies has to say about the world a lot more than i can to 'stray cat blues' or 'all you need is love'.

Without a second thought -  the Beatles.  Better songs.

HOWEVER...who knows what would've happened to the Beatles if they'd stayed together all this time?  Would they have replaced a bunch of members?  Would they have made virtually the same record over and over for the last 25 years?  I think sometimes that the Beatles' legacy has benefitted from their only being together as a popular band for 7 years.  All we know of the Beatles is their peak.  What if the shoe was on the other foot and the Stones had only lasted that long, but the Beatles had kept slopilly rumbling along?  You could ask the same questions about the Kinks, who have had their share of embarassing records.

Bottom line: the Beatles are better, but in reality, it's an apples and oranges situation.

On another note, the Stones are just too blues-influenced for me. I don't like the blues

I would have to say The Beatles without a doubt. I could offer reasons, but there's just something about nearly every damn one of the Beatles songs that hits me in so many different ways. I can't say the same for the Stones.

amen brother.

I think I've heard all of two Stones songs that I even remotely like.  The rest of it can die.

I also think it's interesting that usually it's only people who were kids in the 60s and 70s who even compare the two.  That's why I think the Stones and their sphere of influence will die out much much faster than the Beatles, who have already captured the next generation.

Their music in the sixties is much more dated than the Beatles', and every thing the Stones have done in recent years (i.e. Voodoo Lounge) is about as good as anything post 1980 Aerosmith.

And let's face it, it's so much easier listening to Paul or John sing.  They were two of the greatest voices in music.

Oh yeah, and George wasn't too shabby either.

I'm not saying that the Stones *suck* or anything, just that they're not as good as the Beatles.  They have some great songs...many great songs in fact.  Especially when Brian Jones was in the group.  It's just so hard for ANY group to keep their edge past a certain amount of time...

good call. very good call.

well, i must say that the beatles are better.  every album they released from 1964 to 1969 (notice how i did not mention the dreadful 'let it be') is excellent and filled with amazing songs. however, the stones did do some excellent work in their prime. the song 'i am waiting' off 'aftermath' is their best song in my opinion. BUT I must agree with exliontamer and say that the kinks are as good if not better that either the beatles or the stones. well, they are better than the stones. however, i fucking love the beatles. a better topic would be 'who is better the kinks or the beatles?'


(Edited by ray davies at 2:00 am on April 20, 2002)

I'm with the majority on this one, and i think that The Beatles are better than the Stones, too. There have been few songs I have not at least appreciated by the Beatles, while I am not extremely crazy about the Stones. So, there's my input.

i will say that the stones are underappreciated. i'll also venture to say that they're much more 'rock and roll' than los beatles. i don't mean music-wise so much as personality-wise. the stones sort of created the whole rock and roll excess thing. the beatles just dabbled in debauchery. that's probably part of the reason they were so good. they got distracted by religious gurus instead of smack.

i concur with jamiec about the idea of the beatles being around for more than seven years. it keeps with their whole mystical air. if someone brings in the kinks into this agument, i must also bring in the zombies. i feel they were one of the first bands to productively use keyboards in their songs. as a side note, i recommend everyone try top download 'say you don't mind' by colin blumstone (singer from the zombies), chamber pop at it's finest .

Speaking of the Beatles, I was at this show tonight, and this really great band (Elaine) did a cover of one of their songs. It was awesome. Does anyone else know about Elaine [lawnwrangler]?

Yeah, I've heard of 'em.

I saw a couple of their members switch instruments and play a show a while back.

yeah elaine rocks. they, like the features, are going to save rock and roll. they are pretty damn good looking too.

i suppose i should start a new forum for this, but has anyone (jamie, read: you especially) heard heathen chemistry yet? does this point to budding egalitarianism within oasis? will this escalate the jerry springer-esque inner band conflict that we secretly love?

No, I have not heard 'Heathen Chemistry' yet.  Oasis has completely lost me.  'Standing on the Shoulder of Giants' was fucking terrible.  It was hideous.  (And what's with the incorrect grammar in the title -- it should be 'Shoulder of a Giant' or 'Sholders of Giants', NOT 'Shoulder of Giants'.  Giants [plural] have more than one shoulder!)  Anyway, the album sucked.

I have heard good things about their new record.  Whatever.  If Liam has song(s) on it, that speaks volumes.  If it's on a listening station at Tower, I will listen to it, and if it's good I'll buy it.  But I will not simply go out and buy it.  Oasis have to re-earn my respect.

damon and i have downloaded an early version of the album. i will go on record to say that it is a welcome change of pace for oasis. the songs are very well done (much better that 'standing on the shoulders..). the songs that noel has composed are very heartfelt and show signs of optimism. however, i must tip my hat to liam, who composed the album's best song, 'songbird'. take my word for it, folks: 'songbird' is one of the gallagher brothers' best songs. overall, a very very good album. however, the version that we downloaded is more than likely NOT the version that will be released. oasis rerecorded the entire album in late fall. so the version that we have will probably never see the light of day, which is a shame.

i must say, i was very pleased with the new material. i may be a bit biased though, as oasis is my favorite band. still, it's pretty good- miles better than the last album.

I think that 10 years from now, when we examine the body of work that is Oasis, it will be plain to see that it was all downhill after Guigsy and Bonehead got kicked out.

I am going to have to agree on that one, in both cases. They ARE going to save rock and roll, and they are all pretty damn hot, too. I'm with you to the fullest on that one!

Them going downhill really has nothing to do with Guigsy and Bonehead leaving. They had no artistic say in the band at all, not to mention the fact that they weren't very good musicians. With Alan White, Gem, and Andy Bell in the band, at least they can rock out.

I heard Noel say one time that his agreement with Bonehead was:
'If I see that index finger come off the fretboard, you're fucking fired.'  Meaning, of course, that he was only allowed to play bar chords.

I certainly agree that Gem and Andy are better musicians, I'm not saying that losing Bonehead and Guigy *made* the music bad, just that since they've been out, the music that Oasis has made has sucked.  I have a soft spot in my heart for those guys, though.  There was just something cool about having such simple-minded guys in the band.  Oh, and Oasis sure as hell did rock out back then - check out 'I Am the Walrus' or 'Supersonic' or 'Acquiese' live, circa 1996.  It seems like Andy and Gem were just brought in to try and gain some 'cool' points or credibility or something.

Have you ever heard 'Bonehead's Bank Holiday'?

glad we see eye to eye

sorry that message was screwed up...as you can see i am quite the features message board amateur. but im working on that.

yes, i have heard 'bonehead's...' i think it's good. andy and gem are better performers and players that guigsy and bonehead ever were. i still have faith in oasis, and i dig the new album.

There's nothing I would love more than to see Oasis making great music again.  Like I said, I have not heard their new record yet, but I sincirely hope it's great.  Multiple people on this board can attest to the fact that 4 years ago, I was an Oasis maniac.  I would love to feel that way about them again.

(Edited by jamiecarroll at 1:59 am on April 24, 2002)

i can definitely understand your position. the last album was definitely sub par. for me, however, the be here now era is when i really started to notice oasis, for whatever reason (i guess i never really paid much attention to them before that). The Masterplan really did it for me as well- a great B side comp. Seeing them live the last two summers has pretty much kept me going, and this new record has only fueled the fire. I will admit though, it isn't another morning glory, but I think it would be unfair to expect that.

Overall, I liked 'Be Here Now', too.  It was 'Definitely Maybe' that hooked me, so I have a strong attatchment to that one.  I have always thought, though, that Oasis' best work was on their b-sides.  I collected their singles religiously up until 'Giants'.  Oasis b-sides rule.  Generally, most all 'Britpop' bands' b-sides rule - Blur, Radiohead, Pulp, Suede, Gene, the Auteurs, the Smiths - all of these bands have great b-sides.  It all started with the Beatles.  (Wow!  Back to the original topic!)

i havent liked oasis since 96...........the first two albums were fucking amazing but the last couple have been very disapointing.....very disapointing.....although i would like to see them live someday....

Definitely maybe was ok; morning glory had a couple of good tracks, but I am genuinely astonished that you guys are so into them - I don't think they were ever a seriously good band. just my opinion...

i love em and i can't wait to see them a third time- hopefully this fall...

i was actually surprised to find people here who had actually been oasis fans- not the kind that just bought morning glory, but who were really into them. all i can say is cheers!


(Edited by damon at 4:28 am on April 24, 2002)

'definitely maybe' is terrible. '...morning glory' is actually a good album. i refuse to even acknowledge anything else they've done. oasis sucks. they're possibly the most stupid band in music history. blur are better and everyone talking about this knows it.

Blur are definitely better. Oasis (entire career considered) do not suck. I think that I am the only person to have had both Blur and Oasis stickers on my car simulataeously.

i really like blur as well, but i prefer oasis. and i can think of a lot of bands that are stupider than oasis. whoever said that needs to get a clue. i'm sure that your decision to not acknowledge their later material will break their hearts.

(Edited by damon at 5:07 pm on April 24, 2002)

'stupider'....hmmmm. can you name these phantom bands that are dumber than oasis? i read this cardigans interview and they were asked what they thought about oasis. their only response was, 'they look like racoons'.

Well, off the top of my head- THE CARDIGANS. There are plenty of bands that are dumber than oasis. Frankly, any band that manages to maintain the popularity that oasis has can't be that dumb.

as far as popularity's concerned, i think it's safe to say that oasis had their moment about 5 years ago. intelligence isn't a requirement for popularity anyway. popularity is irrelevant. discussions about oasis are irrelevant.

if discussions about oasis are 'irrelevant' then stop talking about oasis. cant everyone just get along?

oh, we'll get along this weekend, if you catch my drift...

for a band that's had their moment, they seem to do well for themselves. but yes, in this topic, they are irrelevant.