Based on how you described this “new” Beatles album, it does sound like rubbish. And you’re being a tad bitter yourself with this piece, wouldn’t you say?

amen!!

Yeah, not cool.

i mean, oasis have great records( DM, WTSMG) , but come on……!!stop this shit once and for all

Too bad Oasis is better than the Beatles to beging with. Paperback Writer vs. Wonderwall…hmmm, which one wins?

off topic, but doesnt RS have anyone working for them that can properly photoshop a picture?

Not-so-awesome collection of greatest hits? The Beatles are lucky a band like Oasis has come ’round!

Hey, I have an idea. Compare the Beatles’ worst song with Oasis’ best and then say that Oasis is better. Nice try.

RS is so fuckin’ out of touch. Nothing is less rock n’ roll than a “mash-up” of Beatles songs from Cirque de whatever. Oasis rightly rubbished that shit. And read carefully, their slam was not on the Beatles, but on a perversion of the Beatles’ music. But I guess you all have your heads so far up Justin Timberlake’s ass that you wouldn’t know the difference.

Fuckin’ morons!

Without the Beatles, Oasis would never exist, and if they did, they would suck. Oops, too late. The Beatles are way better and they always will be. When Oasis comes out with their own ‘Sgt. Pepper’, then I’ll consider them, though it’s not bloody likely.

What a pathetic whiny article.

Oasis is a great band. No, they aren’t as great as the Beatles, but nobody is.

Definitely

love em both. why compare really?? theyre both great. but if i never heard any of those band’s songs before i think i would have liked Oasis best of better than the beatles to be honest

First of all, Oasis sucks. Everyone compares them to the Beatles because, well, they’re a massive Beatles rip-off. I know I shouldn’t really bring Blur into this (the two bands are entirely different, but they’re always compared), but they introduced far more original ideas. And as far as the Beatles are concerned… yes, they were visionaries–a truly incredible band. But look at the Stones, for god sakes, they’re still together. Yes, you can give me some crap about how Brian Jones died or how the different the two bands’ sensibilities are, but seriously, the Stones have stayed mostly viable for so long. I’m not running out to buy the new Stones album or anything, but as far as this Oasis/Beatles hype machine is concerned: “Let it Bleed.”

Not-so-awesome greates hits albumn? Oasis are no Pete Best or Jane Asher? You need to go stand in the corner for 5 minutes and think about what you just said, come back and apologize for being ignorant.

Yeah, I’ve heard the new Beatles Album and it’s really bad. As much as I dislike the Gallagher brothers, they are completely right.

Looking at the quotes given, it does not look like Oasis is really hating on the Beatles. They are just hating on George Martin’s attempt to squeeze as much money out of the Beatles’ catalog as possible.

One of the brothers saying that “Let It Bleed” was the only good Stones album…now that was annoying.

unfortunately for RS, the gallaghers are right. if you feel the need to pick a fight with oasis, as you obviously do, next time pick one where you actually have a point.

There is no way in the nine rings of hell or anywhere else for that matter, that Oasis is better than the Beatles. Beatles=original. Oasis=Beatles rip off.

Anyone that would think for a second that Oasis is better than the Beatles knows nothing about music or, they are the ones that think ICP is a band with talent.

Give us all a break!

The Beatles are the best band ever created to even have oasis compared to them is a load of shit. The Beatles are in a league of their own and they will always stay that way. Everyone knows who The Beatles are, i don’t think anyone gives a shit about Oasis. And to the person who said that Oasis is better, lets just see how long they’ll actually last… i think the Beatles have a couple decades on them and there is no slowing down. There are four year olds who attend a McCartney concert and they love it. Sorry but you don’t know what you’re talking about, Oasis compared to the Beatles is an utter and cruel joke.

Rollingstone rigorously defending a remix album? That’s the real travesty here. Defending a producer hiding behind giants its one of the most amusing things I have ever heard, good thing Rollingstone hasn’t lost their sense of “humor”.

I’m buying Stop The Clocks, but I’m definitely not buying Love, yet another Beatles compilation. I already have the Beatles’ songs three times over on the albums and various mixes – Love is rubbish because it’s so unnecessary. And that’s all Oasis were saying, they weren’t slagging the Beatles off, just this boring compilation.

Rolling Stone just has a grudge against Oasis.

Fuck you, Al Gore.

Wonderwall vs. Yesterday. which wins?

Did Michael Richards write this article? There is a lot of anger there…

I could be wrong but I thought that RS was trying to imitate the Gallaghers by slagging Stop The Clocks.

http://youdontsmoke.w ordpress.com

hey rolling stone i challenge you right now, to name one oasis song, oasis ripped off from the beatles. i bet you can’t because one doesn’t exist. thanks for playing though. i’m tired of this argument your shit magazine fornicates upon the rest of the mainstream american press. oasis rips off the beatles blah blah. they actually don’t oasis have rippped everyone from wham to gary glitter, but not the beatles. once again i reiterate my challenege to you find me an oasis song that rips off the beatles. their is not one american bar pavement that reaches the heights that the gallaghers scaled in their prime. people like you worship nirvana and wear black. i listened to definitely maybe as a 10 year old in the bronx and saw hope.

The whole argument that “Oasis would never exist if it werent for the Beatles” is basically the same argument you can say about any other band and their idols before them. Then of course the inevitable “they would suck”,folks let me let you in on a little secret Noel Gallaghers got talent. Love him or hate him he’s damn good and according to George Martin (who did the Love albumn) he’s the best songwriter of his generation. At the least the most polarizing musician of our lifetime.

Rolling Stone has a major hard-on for the Beatles. They are over-rated…I’m not saying they suck, I’m saying they’re not the world’s greatest band…especially their pre-Rubber Soul pop crap

a critic comparing oasis to the beatles??? NO WAY!!&*^% congratulations on having the least original idea ever.

seriously, it’s no wonder people hold garbage like ‘blender’ in higher regard than RS these days.

Since the remaining Beatles, and the widows, gave their blessing, I take offense at Janet slagging George Martin for trying to make a buck on the Beatles catalog. It’d be interesting to see who’s interesting in putting together a whole show based on Oasis music — 36 years after they break up. The good thing about this “Love” thing? It’s kinda fun and will give the kids who might not take the time to listen to the Beatles catalog a course in Beatles 101. I can see it now. Someone who’s first exposure to The Beatles through “Love” hearing “Rubber Soul” in 10 years or so and saying, “Wow, isn’t that riff from the Beatles “Love” CD? We could listen to worse, and unfortunately do with regularity. Peace, oh, and love….

Everyone here seems to agree that Oasis are Beatles rip-offs. Fine. But doesn’t that show Oasis’ love for the Beatles? No band in the history of rock and roll has paid as much homage to the Beatles than Oasis. Rolling Stone, you just keep getting worse and worse. You take two quotes completely out of context, scream patricide, and tell Oasis off.
When will you go back to being a real rock and roll magazine?

come on, people, you can’t seriously think that the new Beatles collection is unnecessary, then turn right around and say a greatest hits collection from Oasis is? The mark of a band that is near its death is that they release a bunch of hits that offer no new material whatsoever. As for the Beatles, they really have nothing left, and maybe a remix collection would be an interesting way to revisit the music.

http://www.myspace.com/elfshu

who wrote this article?
It seems like this guy is pissed because he bought an Oasis album for a girlfriend that broke up with him.

Noel Gallagher may not be John Lennon, but hes closer to his hero than you are to yours.

Oasis brothers are toss-offs.

RS SUCKS!…………POP MUSIC AND AND MORE POP MUSIC

Oasis and The Beatles Live4ever!

Wow Rolling Stone! Usually when you take something out of context and bash/slander someone, it’s a Republican.

Enough BULLSHIT! The Beatles were Rock & Roll Gods! Who gives a rats ass about the Gallager brothers. Does anybody care about their watermelon smashing routine?
Who knows? Maybe in ten yaers they’ll tour with the Knack. Piss off wannabes!

Oasis would’nt exist without the beatles, the beatles would’nt exist without chuck berry… beethoven… adam an f**king Eve. Change the record!. Oasis were the sound of a generation and sold 10’s of millions of records all over the world (with the exception of the country that calls football – soccarrr). Oasis were inspired by the Beatles, even Macca, George Martin and Ringo Dig them, so Rolling Stone, get a grip, get off their case

calling oasis ‘beatle rip-offs’ is the most lazy, ignorant ‘opinion’ you could give. their sound owes far more to the roses, pistols, and slade than to the fab four. but what else would you expect from Amuricuh.

rs really hate oasis, but I think the Gallagher brothers don´t give a f***

“Oasis were the sound of a generation and sold 10’s of millions of records all over the world (with the exception of the country that calls football – soccarrr)”

HMMM thats why What’s the story morning glory sold more than 4.5mil in the u.s.

The Beatles…….overated a little but still great innovators. Oasis……..a descent band that sold some records around the world, mainly in the U.K.

Let us not forget that Noel refused to put out a greatest hits and then Sony basically said well we are putting one out if you want to be involved you can or we can do it. Noel decided to get involved and put THE BANDS favorite songs on the albumn, not necessarily the greatest hits which will explain the omission of several songs that had chart success. Sony wants to cash in that is all, they know all Oasis albumns bring in the bank and that they don’t want to re-sign. Sony wants a last payday, the 6 albumn deal was up with 2005’s Don’t Believe the Truth.

Sorry for Oasis fans but Oasis is mainstream pop music garbage the beatles are god dont even challenge them. Liam and Noel are two ridiculous sons of bitchs who are never sober. Their most recent album was boring and even if their other albums were ok they are no where near as superior as the Beatles.

“HMMM thats why What’s the story morning glory sold more than 4.5mil in the u.s”

Noel Gallagher has branded people who like Oasis’ second album the best “squares”.

The guitarist – who insists he has never bettered his debut album ‘Definitely Maybe’ – has mocked people who favour the band’s worldwide hit LP ‘(What’s The Story Morning Glory?’ for not being cool.

Noel said: “If you stop the man in the street and ask, ‘What’s Oasis’ best album?’ a few might say ‘Don’t Believe The Truth’, which is great, the squares will say ‘Morning Glory’ and the cool people will say ‘Definitely Maybe’.”

Oasis are cooler, there songs are catchier, fuck the Beatles so what if Oasis looked up to the Beatles i taught Heaten Chemistry was shit and i think Noel would agree Oasis are the better version of the overrated Beatles fuck the haters,

okay so the beatles are great…we know. yeah they had some spectacular messages but we’ve all heard them. oasis..just another good band our kids will forget about in 20 years. they are arrogant but so were the beatles. only truly great musicians are humble about their music and dont force things down peoples throats. how about we find some new artists to talk about?

OASIS ROCK

RS STICK 2 COVERING KFED & PARIS HILTON- ‘REAL MUSIC’

WHERE IS CHINESE DEMOCRACY- IT’S NOV. 21ST. DAM THAT AXL ROSE

Piss off, ya bloody tossers!

bloody tossers? what does that mean in english’???

Sorry for Oasis fans but Oasis is mainstream “pop music garbage the beatles are god dont even challenge them. Liam and Noel are two ridiculous sons of bitchs who are never sober. Their most recent album was boring and even if their other albums were ok they are no where near as superior as the Beatles.”

they are never sober such insight into their daily lives. so you live with both of them ? the beatles are the most overrated band on the face of the planet. the real talent in that time were the kinks. a far far superior band in my opinion. for christ sakes the beatles don’t even have the best album to come out of liverpool, that belongs to the la’s. oh and definitely maybe is better than any beatles record. in fact bar pet sounds, stone roses, the queen is dead, and forever changes it’s the best record ever !

I take Oasis position. A few years ago, Let It Be…Naked was released. It was right around the same time The Shins had a new release (Chutes Too Narrow). I thought about which one I should purchase on my limited budget, and than it hit me. There are so many Indie bands out there struggling to stay viable. The Beatles reissues are nothing more than a bloated corporate cash cow stealing market share & publicity from some very talented smaller label bands. My decision was easy after that.

So this holiday season why not try to refrain from spending your hard earned money on second rate Beatle reissues. Do your research and find an indie or other small label band that interests you and buy their CD. Trust me, you’ll feel good about it.

why are we even comparing the beatles and oasis?

bloody tossers is english you twat

Unbelievable!
#1The Beatles record ‘Love’ not the Beatles, IS CRAP.
#2 It was made for Cirque De Soleil for God’s sake!
#3 Oasis does not SOUND like the Beatles. That arguement is so cliched and old it’s unbeleiveable.
#4 Noel Gallagher wasn’t pumping up his album as he was just giving his opinion on another Beatles mash up for money.
#5 ‘Stop The Clocks’ is only being released b/c Sony was going to put something out now that Oasis has ended their contract, so Noel decided to get involved so Sony didn’t have free reign. Oasis DID NOT want a best of at all now.
#6 Oasis first 2 albums trump all over The Beatles, Stones or anybody elses first two albums.
#7 Oasis has sold over 50 million albums worldwide with Morning Glory selling 19 million.
#8 This is most important…….Noel was saying that an album of Beatles songs that has been mashed up in a studio for a Las Vegas Cirque De Soliel show is crap. That is ALL he said!!! Hey Rolling Stone…go back to putting Britney, every Boy Band and lame rapper back on your covers and let all the real rock critics who have taken over your once dominant position as rock critic, review albums and artists.

-Here is how the albums are selling in UK.

http://www.hmv.co.uk/hm vweb/navigate.do?ctx=1000;-1;- 1;-1&pPageID=1005&WT.ac=frontd oor_left_textmenu_charts_artis talbums

Sorry here ya go.

http://www.hmv.co.uk

then go to album charts on bottom left.

All I can say is after reading this excuse for an article is that I’m glad I’m a music fan living in America.

Oasis just Beatles rip-offs, blah blah blah. *yawn*

Don’t you fat, cheese-burger eating people realise that Oasis changed British culture and lit a flame in the youth of our country which is still burning as bright as it’s ever been?

Live Forever

oasis sucks.

I cant believe im going to say this but fuck Oasis. I love Morning Glory and i herd all this talk about there first cd, but come on man. Oasis went out as fast as the spice girls did in america, i dont see them tour america anymore because ppl dont care anymore. Paul McCartney on the other hand can travle to every state with just “yesterday” and “hey jude” and get shit loads of money. Oasis are great, but they cant top Morning Glory

One Oasis cd verses the entier Beatle song book……

I hate it to put it so bluntly, but that’s just bullshit. Oasis rocks. And they can say whatever they want. They’re not saying the Beatles suck, they’re just saying the CD was kind of pointless. And I agree.
LONG LIVE NOEL AND LIAM!

Oasis were a great band and “Definitely Maybe” is the best record made by anybody in the 90s. It’s in my top 20 of all time. So is “A Hard Day’s Night” -but as for these two records, I think the Beatles one is pointless. The Oasis comp at least gathers some of the best stuff of the mostly lame post “Morning Glory” releases. Advantage : Oasis.

Oasis is the best band of the last 20 years…. the beatles suck. Thats it. Noel and Liam are wayyy cooler than Paul McCartney and Rolling Stone is a joke.

Hey everybody, check out the brand new 2006 nude photos of courtney love from a British magazine,which can be found at http://dlisted.com/page/4/ and scroll half way down.

I’m with Oasis. These Beatles reissues are nothing new, and this reediting is insulting to say the least; Oasis have classic albums, also, and their reach might not have the Beatles’ (anyone bar U2, Madonna, Rolling Stones and Prince have it anyway), but they certainly won me over with their ballsy position on “Crap”, ops, I mean, “Love”.

Shame on Rolling Stone for putting name above quality: just cause they are the beatles doesnt justify that one fart from George can be proclaimed by you as “superior”. Get over yourselves.

I respect Oasis and their work, but who in the hell do they think they are criticizing the Beatles; the very foundation of most of the musical genres that exist today. Try placing Wonderwall on a scale with any of the Beatles hits. For that matter, any of John Lennon’s solo work. For shame, you nasty Gallaghers.

Oasis bought popular rock back to the world. Without Oasis, bands such as Coldplay and the Killers will not exist had they not been inspired with Oasis’s swirling guitars and swagger. Indeed, Oasis have popularised and modernised British rock, and perhaps the only difference between the Beatles and Oasis were that the Beatles were the first to the chords.

Oasis rock. Loads of people i know have got oasis records, and yes, this is the usa. I remember the mid 1990’s oasis were huge here. Its just that there was a lack of promotion for later material. Anyone who belives that the beatles are better than oasis really should be sent to Guantanomo right away

boo hoo, somebody made fun of the beatles!how dare they!whaaaa!

Oasis suck. Long live the Beach Boys!

“Bloody tossers” means you’re a fat, stupid Yank twat.

How exactly is Noel wrong? Taking snippets from songs and pasting them over others in Pro Tools is hardly worthy of a release. At this point taking a Lennon interview and looping it over the Tomorrow Never Knows beat would constitute a Beatles release.

As for the Beatles influencing Oasis, perhaps the journalists might want to expand their own musical knowledge. Pink Floyd, The Smiths, The Who, The Sex Pistols, The Jam, The Small Faces, The Kinks, The Las – all far more influential on Noel’s songwriting than the Beatles. The attitude of this posting shows exactly how ignorant some of Rolling Stone’s writers are.

The Beatles are the greatest studio band ever. Oasis is one of the best bands of the nineties. The Beatles win. However, George Martin and his douchebag son should not be making their own personal mash-ups of classics.

All I can say is that anyone who is taking Oasis’ side is a disgrace and give everyone in our generation a bad name. Yes i’m an Oasis fan, but after Morning Glory nothing compares. The Beatles are the greatest band ever and they can do what ever they want as far as I’m concerned. On behalf of this entire generation who wouldnt know music if it bit them in the ass, I apologize. Oh and for all you fans out there who think Oasis is better…answer this, when was the last time you heard anyone talk about them (besides when they insult the beatles…which was obvious self-promotion). That’s right, they were big in the mid 90s and umm ya that’s it.

Rolling Stone is run by a bunch of aging liberal hippie douche bags. The Beatles as great as they are didn’t release this, it was the beneficiaries of their estates. Do you think Lennon would allow this if he were alive? Of course not. Oasis do have big mouths. That’s what makes them Oasis, that’s what makes them Rock N’ Roll. If it wasn’t for the Gallaghers’ statements, I wouldn’t even know that “the Beatles” released more retread bullshit. Paul McCartney could record himself taking a shit and you guys would give it four stars.

The Beatles had one solid record – Revolver – and Oasis are awful!! Radiohead is by far the best band to ever come out of the UK!

amen to that oasis should shut the hell up

God remember when the Gallagher’s opinion mattered? me neither.

oasis are only populare in the uk i dont know why since they only released 2 great albums and that’s it radiohead are better

I see this as a non issue. Haven’t we come to expect this from Oasis?

Who cares.

i love how everyone keeps dissing rollingstone. is that why you jokes went to their site to post on THEIR wall. wow you’re really stickin it to em’. deutchbags. and please get an education. the moment you begin to compare the beatles and oasis, you’ve alrady lost all credibility. please tell me how you beat 27 number ones, 19 number one albums, 6 diamond albums and oh ya, over 1 billion discs or tapes sold. it sure is a close race.

People really need to chill the fuck out. How gives a shit what the guys from Oasis say about the Beatles. When was the last time anyone from this generation put a Beatles Album on anyways? Oasis are what Rock and Roll are all about, and I for one think that is fucking cool.

You’ve got to be kidding me.

This is the reason why i Stopped buying your magazine. Articles like this.

Talk all trash you want about Oasis – it’s music taste. Say their albums are crap. I’ll take it. Say they’re trash. I’ll take it. But you compare Oasis to the Beatles. The old ORIGINAL argument. Well You have to be kidding me. Oasis have been influenced by at least 10 bands much more than the beatles, just so you know. Give me an album that sounds liek the beatles, with the exception of songs that contain lyrics inspired by beatles songs (about three of them). Guess what? EVERYONE IS INSPIRED BY THE BEATLES BUDDY. They are the best band that has ever existed on this planet.

As for the blasphemy: Love surely is BRILLIANT. I love it. But again, its personal opinions. It’s a remix album for God’s sake. People dont even consider it a real album. It is NOT a real album. HELL, the last real album was Let It Be. When Noel comes out and says it’s SHIT, you talk about blasphemy? If he comes and says Revolver is shit, sure, i’ll agree with you. But this is a REMIX fuckign album.

oasis never said beatles music was shit. but back to the point… you are just ignorant. You don’t know what you’re talking about.

And in conclusion, Oasis WILL BEAT the Beatles this week in the UK charts. Just so you know. Take care, and go listen to some music.

why the fuck is anyone writing articles about oasis? that my question. assholes at rollingstone wouldn’t know a brick if it hit them in their shit eating mouths.

Everyone who has billed this as Noel hates the Beatles or Oasis vs. The Beatles obviosuly didn’t get the point.

Noel Gallagher slammed the ‘Love’ album which is NOT by the Beatles persay. Noel and the rest of Oasis love the Beatles. I love Oasis and if someone did a studio mix for Cirque De Soliel I might slam that album too. Where does it say that Noel or Oasis said the hated The Beatles or that they we’re better?

As far as you Radiohead freaks, please tell me 3 straight albums of noise after a decent run w/ the Bends and Ok Computer merit anything.

Oasis loves the Beatles – trying to make a story otherwise proves you shouldn’t write about what you don’t know.

the fact that oasis feels threatend by a band that broke up more than 30 years ago tells you something about them and the beatles

Oasis Sucks. Their best album can’t even peel the spine label off of the Beatles lamest “Let it Be….Naked”….Q, Uncut, & Mojo all suck terribly for even giving Oasis the time of day.

why cant we all just appreciate the good music both bands have given us?
so beatles fans go listen to your beatles albums
and oasis fans go listen to your oasis albums and we can all just let it be…

Its ridiculous to consider this a Beatles album, considering that half are dead and the other half didn’t touch it. However, as a Beatles fan, I’ve found it pretty enjoyable and interesting.

At this point, is it really surprising to see a mainstream American music publication jump on Oasis? A legitimate rock critic should have no business getting pissy about Noel Gallagher’s opinion. Any Oasis fan would tell you that the Gallagher brothers are two of the biggest Beatle fans there are. It seems completely within reason to criticize “LOVE” as a re-mix soundtrack for a circus.

Across the shelf, however, is the “new” Oasis release, a “Best Of” collection. For those who enjoyed the US hit tracks from Morning Glory (Wonderwall, Don’t Look Back in Anger, and Champagne Supernova), you should check out this collection. Oasis have scored 8 UK #1 hits, and their newest album receiced widespread critical acclaim.

I think a lot of people went to their local record store today and bought “Love” and “Stop the Clocks.” I did.

It’s not rubbish. I enjoyed it. Noel and Liam are cry babies because now their shitty hits package won’t have a chance. 50 years from now nobody will know or care who Oasis were but The Beatles music will live on. Anyone who disagrees is either too young or too ignorant to know better.

Let’s get one thing straight i am a big beatles fan but i am a much bigger oasis fan. The fact that a multi genre music magazine dare to have such a ridiculous comment on one of the most talented men in music today is very obscene.
Noel would never jip anything the beatles have ever recorded because they are genius, and the beatles didn’t mix this. He was saying that to churn amazing beatles songs into something there not, is insane. I mean who do rolling stone think they are (The Sun) I mean for christ sake they have Borat on the cover dressed like freddy mercury.
‘Rolling stone’ a word of advice. ‘GROW UP’.

If anyone questions the Beatles’ superiority over Oasis, they probably don’t know much about music. Just less than half of Oasis’ catalogue is either boring or just plain bad, but it’s ALL Beatles rip-offs.

It’s funny that they still think they’re relevant.

Oh, for fucks sake! Read the damn interview- they weren’t slagging off the Beatles- Noel was ripping on Sir Martin trying to squeeze blood from a stone. For the love of GOD, don’t jump to conclusions.

Why are people surprised by this? Its what the Gallaghers always do… Thats why I love them… u either get them or you dont… Simple fact is they are one of the greatest bands today With some really great songs (most of their bsides can piss all over half the crap thats out there right now)… Are they as good as the beatles…. Noone is…. just remember people they are carrying on that tradition of great British rock n roll…..

the beatles are good, but Oasis is better…you can flame me all you want on that, but “Dont Look Back in Anger” SHITS all over anything the Beatles have ever done…now without the Beatles there would be no Oasis, but that doesnt mean the Beatles are better…its like Aeromsmith and the Stones being responsible for Guns N Roses..GNR are better than both of them…although they are all great

Rolling Stone can fuck off. It’s a fuckin’ opinion you bastards, what the hell are you gonna do about it? It’s not as if they said The Beatles are horrible. Not even Pete Best? FUCK OFF. I’m surprised peoplke still read the shit Rolling Stone writes.

I’m a huge Beatles fan. I’m a huge Oasis fan. This is Rolling Stone trying to stir things up to capture a few more readers/buyers. You see, music critics and writers are just like sports writers- they are frustrated that they are not good enough to do what they critique, so they critique. They’re like the kid who only got to ‘manage’ his high school baseball team- he got to carry the bags and maybe wear a uniform, but behind his back, the players had no more respect for him than they do any other fan. Rolling Stone is a joke. The Beatles created modern rock. Then it died. Oasis was instrumental in rescusitating it. Oasis will go down with the Stones, Pistols, Who, Floyd, U2, and the Beatles as the best British bands of all time and Noel Gallagher is one of the finest songwriters of all time. Can’t believe I said that? Pete Townsend and Johnny Marr have both said those exact words. But hey, I guess Rolling Stone would dismiss them as ‘Beatle bashers’, right?

I have just finished listening to Love twice with the headphones and it`s a total acid trip one MINDBLOWING !!! all you poser who are calling it bad never even listen to it . Oasis are just doing what they can to promote there new cd just like M&M or any other rapper. The beatles only need there music to sell there music because their that good.

MORRISSEY CAN WRITE A BETTER SONG THAN NOEL . THE SMITHS STOMP ALL OVER OASIS AND THEY KNOW IT AND JOHNNY MARR CAN PLAY CIRCLES AROUND OASIS.THE BEATLES BUILT THE WORLD ALL BANDS LIVE IN WE KNOW THERE THE BEST.

The sound quality of LOVE is amazing . The clarity of the instruments and voices has to be heard . The guitars on revoltion is awesome. the beginging and ends of the songs are where all the mashing happening but the songs themselves are unchanged. Really a fantastic listen . It`s like hearing The Beatles with new ears . I F`EN LOVE LOVE !!! Poor Oasis has to resort to name calling to sell a record.SAD

Oasis has a few good songs The beatles have like ,what over a 150 great songs. see the differnce . Does any one think if oasis was broken up for over 35 years that anyone would remember them ?? Come on ..Honestly do you ?? There biggest hit was wonderwall named after a George Harrison record and that was like what over 10 years ago . They will be forgotten . No wonder there pissed at The Beatles Jealous bastards

I agree wholeheartly, that’s just freaking ridiculous.

Typical of Rolling Stone and the American press to talk more shit about one of the greatest bands of all-time–Oasis. Let’s just settle down a bit. Obviously Oasis love and respect the Beatles, but does this not mean they aren’t allowed to dislike “audio snipets” of their songs “weaved together”. Maybe Oasis is just like me, a true Beatles fan who would rather listen to THE BEATLES and their records as they stand. Let’s face it-it’s hard to mess with perfection, “Audio-snipets” will not stand for true Beatles fans.

the. beatles. are. fucking. awesome. period. a tape-recording of john lennon fucking yoko with a dildo would sound/sell better than anything oasis puts its sub par mark on.

You can be a huge fan of some band or singer and admit that some of there songs suck. Beatles, Oasis, and any other music acts have done some bad songs. John Lennons solo stuff is overrated if he was not murdered or a former Beatle no one would care.

Ac

“But they are the fucking Beatles, so they win. Get over it.”

you see still those words, those words.. Why… the album sucks! They dont win because its good they win because this is BS!!!

I totally agree with oasis. I heard one track off Love and I agree totally pointless. It was not as good as the original.

What is RS on about Blaspheme??? They were the Beatles great but no one is untouchable. It’s justy George Martin trying to cash in, if any one has been blasphemous its him for ruining classi Beatles tunes.

“#6 Oasis first 2 albums trump all over The Beatles, Stones or anybody elses first two albums.”

Uh… Kev… you’re ridiculously stupid.

Oh My God !! Within Without you /Tomorrow Never Know is one of the most amazing things i have ever heard !! It`s like a new song SO GOOD !!! And Jane you`re so right Paul gets no respect cause he`s alive . John had some pretty awful record solo but since he`s dead no one wants to admit it . And after George died he`s eing treated the same way .Yet Paul goes out and Rock like a anilmal at over 60 years old and some people say he`s soft. Paul can rock a 2 1/2 hour show playing bass piano electric and acoustic guitars and singing the entire show like he`s still in his 30`s and he`s called soft ??? Paul`s the MAN !!!

The Gallagher brothers are usually loud-mouthed jerks, but in this case I’m giving them a pass. Love isn’t a real Beatles album. It’s a pathetic cash-in.

It’s just oais being honest. If that’s there opinion and I agree, respect it, he was probaly asked in an interview and he gave his honest opinion. Gallagher has always considered the Beatles as untouch able and he thinks theta wht Love is is crap. Not heard it but not interested in hearing it either- Cirque De Soleil-how rock and roll is that, I mean..

I have never been a big Beatles fan anyway, sorry but they are just boring, nice songs yes but dull. Just prooves Rolling Stone has always been about 50 years out of date.

The Smiths first and there second (Meat Is Murder) were much better than Oasis`s first two cd`s. Morrissey lyrics are so honest and Marr`s guitar playing were extraorinary. Morrissey is probably the best wordsmith in the entire world .

Oasis bored me to death when i saw em live. but maybe thats because every song was 7 or 8 minutes and i only knew like 2 of em. but then, they were playing after Garbage (in their last american show, ever) Weezer and Beck.

I love weezers first cd The Blue one. Every song was great .

one of the worst n pointless articles i v ever seen!!!
oasis propaganda n love for the beatles made the beatles in the last years a top band again.
imagine if Noel & Liam were talkin only about the Rolling Stones in the glory days of britpop…oasis r a top band with an incredible collection of the ir best songs out now.show them the respect they deserve n make yourself a favour buyin their album.

oasis is much better then the beatles…thw who and queen and pink floyd and led zep were also better then the beatles….

I saw the headline and was genuinely shocked. Call oasis what ever you want but they have always treated the Beatles with utter reverance and the deepest respect. They still do. I read the article and shame on you Rolling Stone, you pathetic hypocrits. He was giving his views on Love which seems to be a hotch potch of Beatles songs jumbled together. In my opinion its awful but if you like it, fine. To me its a cash in on the Beatles and is beyond contempt. The Beatles records are sacred, I totally agree, but this is not a Beatles record, it’s a sell out to some loathsome corporate BMW sponsored French Canadian Circus. It was not by the Beatles but by the Beatles ex producer- its scanadalous that they used the Beatles name for this junk. Gallagher didn’t have a go at the Beatles but at what they have done to the Beatles. Burn in hell Rolling Stone. Just your excuse to give the magnificent Stop the Clocks 0 out of 10.

me think the gallagher brothers are really mad at zak (ringo`s son) for telling them he wanted to play with a real rock and roll band the who haha zak was the best thing they had going for them on the last tour and cd . zak`s on tour with the who as we speak hahaha a beatles son stuck it to them and there hurt hahaha

And the turkey you festively slice
Is MURDER
Do you know how animals die ?
The flesh you so fancifully fry
The meat in your mouth
As you savour the flavour
Of MURDER

I think oasis should sue Rolling Stone. The headline is a gross distortion of the facts, untrue and is liabolous. I’m not exagerrating Noel Gallagher will not take this, this is beyond reproach.

libelous- “harmful and often untrue; tending to discredit or malign” = That article and headline

Bahh, just the usual Rolling Stone crap.

http://www.thesun.co. uk/

I prefer the Sun’s oasis headline urging people to buy the oasis greatest hits “Stop The Clocks”

So far oasis are Number 1 and Love is number 3, U2 (another shameless cash in are No 4)

How can OASIS berate The Beatles LOVE soundtrack album when they are also selling a best of collection themselves? talking about being idle.

they are one of THE most OVERRATED bands ever… enough said.

OASIS…not The Beatles (of course)

This is a new low for Rollingstone, a magazine that just keeps getting worse and worse. Obviously they were just looking for some attention, the comments Oasis made were honestly pretty accurate, the “Love” album is “rubbish”, and it has nothing to do with the Beatles. Anyone can think the Love album is terrible and still think the Beatles is the greatest band of all time, as I do, and Liam Gallagher. Rollingstone is “rubbish” as well.

To the ignorant guy who said The Beatles are the most overrated band on the planet and said he thinks The Kinks were a far far superior band, and to anyone else who made similar ignorant comments, including the guy who called their pre-Rubber Soul music “pop crap” I have to say you don’t know what you are talking about!

There are music professors teaching courses on The Beatles at least 6 good universities, Dr.Glen Gass who is an award winning music profesor at Indiana University has been teaching a course on rock music and a course on The Beatles since 1982. On his web site it says the point of his course is teache students about this extrodinary group and to get them to appreciate The Beatles remarkable recordings. Dr.Kendall’s Beatles course is one of the most requested courses at North Western University. in Finland there is a music professor by the last name of Heinonen at JYVASKLA university also teaches a Beatles course. classical composer and conducter Leonard Bernstein also said that John Lennon and Paul MCcatney were the two most brilliant song composers of the 20th century. Brian Wilson and Elton John said this about them too Elton John in a CBS morning 1991 TV interview,and Brian Wilson said it in a 1995 Nightline Beatles tribute show that had many different music artists from all kinds of music,black and white young and older,including opera,classical and rock Steve Winwood praised them on this show too.

Even Ozzy Osbourne is a huge impressed Beatles fan and said in an a online Blender magazine a few years ago that The Beatles are the greatest band to ever walk the earth! He also was quoted elsewhere online saying not loving The Beatles is like not loving oxogen! She Loves You is one of his favorite songs and he was a Beatles fan since he was a teenager.

I suggest you read The Beatles Recording Sessions by Mark Lewisohn which is a very detailed music diary of their amazing 8 year recording career. Many of their recording engineers and tape operators are interviewed too and it really shows just how truly innovative,creative and inventive especially John and Paul were in the recording studio.

How many music professors are teaching music courses on The Kniks?

I just noticed I made a typing mistake. I meant to say how many music profesors are teaching music courses on The Kinks?
Also The Rolling Stones were very big fans and good friends with The Beatles and Mick jagger was at 4 Beatles recording sessions and Keith Richards was at 2 of them with him. John and Paul even wrote one of The Rolling Stones first hits I Wanna Be You’re Man in early 1964. A Hard Day’s Night is a great album too by the way an early *great* album!

how dare u call the beatles pop crap you may be noel and liam gallagher but you will never be jon lennon or paul mccartney you fkn retards, i hope u burn in hell one day u sods.
no one can diss the beatles (no one!)

what kind of fan do u call yourself?

Oasis has a few good songs The beatles have like ,what over a 150 great songs. see the differnce . Does any one think if oasis was broken up for over 35 years that anyone would remember them ?? Come on ..Honestly do you ?? There biggest hit was wonderwall named after a George Harrison record and that was like what over 10 years ago . They will be forgotten . No wonder there pissed at The Beatles Jealous bastards.

you might be very talentented musicians but no wayyy you’ll ever match up to the beatles i have your album on my comp but i’m gonna delete it

you beatles literally introduced your genre of music (indie) i think (george harrison) they tried new sounds and went out of their comfort zone. so excuse if u call their records crap, then simply don’t listen to it.!

Sorry for Oasis fans but Oasis is mainstream “pop music garbage the beatles are god dont even challenge them. Liam and Noel are two ridiculous sons of bitchs who are never sober. Their most recent album was boring and even if their other albums were ok they are no where near as superior as the Beatles.”

they are never sober such insight into their daily lives. so you live with both of them ? the beatles are the most overrated band on the face of the planet. the real talent in that time were the kinks. a far far superior band in my opinion. for christ sakes the beatles don’t even have the best album to come out of liverpool, that belongs to the la’s. oh and definitely maybe is better than any beatles record. in fact bar pet sounds, stone roses, the queen is dead, and forever changes it’s the best record ever !

Oasis would’nt exist without the beatles, the beatles would’nt exist without chuck berry… beethoven… adam an f**king Eve. Change the record!. Oasis were the sound of a generation and sold 10’s of millions of records all over the world (with the exception of the country that calls football – soccarrr). Oasis were inspired by the Beatles, even Macca, George Martin and Ringo Dig them, so Rolling Stone, get a grip, get off their case
you may say you show love 4 da beatles but it doesn’t look like it to me…

BEATLES BASHERS

1. If you think the Smiths were better than Oasis (n 94-95), fair enough. But I can’t stand Morrissey’s voice. Sorry – advantage Oasis.

2. If you think Radiohead are better than Oasis (in 94-95), fair enough. But I actually like you know, Rock & Roll not blips and droning lyrics about man’s alienation. Advantage Oasis.

3. If you think the Beatles are better than Oasis (in 94-95), fair enough – I won’t argue and I probably agree, but…..that isn’t the point. The point is that Noel thinks the “Love” album is rubbish. Are the Beatles that sacred that he can’t say that? Sorry, that’s BS – this is pop music, it’s not that serious – too much protecting of the Beatles myth has gone on for far too long – and I’m a Beatles fanatic…….and for the record, “Definitely Maybe” can stand with just about any Rock album ever made by anyone. I won’t defend much of the Oasis work after “Morning Glory” – but for that 18 month stretch in 94-95 they were something amazing.

By the way I was born during the middle of their recording career and I have been a huge highly impressed fan since I was 11 years old and I got my first Beatles book for my 11th birthday and I had every album by the age of 13.

Oh just to chime in on “pre-Rubber Soul”, “A Hard Day’s Night” is the best Beatles album. Seriously……it’s got all great songs , Lennon sings 9 of them(!) and McCartnet doesn’t ruin the record with any of his crap the way he does every subsequent album (”Good day Sunshine”, “Michelle”, “Lovely Rita”, “Ob-la Dee”, “Maxwell’s Silver Hammer” — gag)

They made more “mature” records after “hard Day’s Night” and they made some great ones – but they never topped that album in my book…..the innocence , joy and spirit of that album are timeless…..afterwards , still great, but too self-conscious in comparison.

For all those who think oasis don’t matter today..

They have a headline in this mag (the US)

They are one of the main headlines on todays The Sun Newspaper (UK)

They have a front page headline on todays Sydney Morning Herald (Australia)

As Oscar Wilde said ” The only thing worse than being talked about, is not being talked about”

Noel definetly has a libel case against Rolling Stone, there is no question.

A false publication, as in writing, print, signs, or pictures, that damages a person’s reputation.
The act of presenting such material to the public.

What this article should have said:

“Hi, I love The Beatles, maaaaaaan. What’s that Paul, you need a fluffer? ”

Se riously, how far up your own arse do you have to be to write an article like this?

What is RS thinking? Back then, my friends and I got into the Beatles BECAUSE of Oasis … and yes, before I get shot, I understand the Beatles are the best ever (As do 99% of Oasis fans). RS IS allowed to hate on Oasis but this is simply tabloid material. Someone already said it but Oasis is the most polorizing force in the universe! Find out why and actually LISTEN to “Stop The Clocks!” – maybe just maybe you’ll really really really hate it.

BTW: Does anyone else think somone at pitchfork is upset RS beat them to this – what are they going to write about now?

I saw the Beatles in 1964, and the sex pistols in 78 when Sid Vicious had a rig in his arm in texas. Revolver is the best Beatle album. Tomorrow Never Knows is the best Beatle song, although they turned the corner with “Paperback Writer”, actually, the flip side “Rain”, and Oasis sucks and Rolling Stone Sucks, and dod up there, America does not suck, the Earth sucks.

I forgot to thank that person for pointing out Courtney Love’s tits, and she needs to get rid of her cigarette.

Come on, to the people who listened to The Beatles because: of Oasis: that’s more of a reflection of your ignorance rather than than Oasis’ talent.

Oh my god! I don’t believe it, Rolling Stone has something negative to say about Oasis. Say what you want about the Gallagher brothers, but to think that they hold some grudge against The Beatles is laughable. Nobody has greater respect for John, Paul, George and Ringo than Liam and Noel, “Love” is just a crap record and I’m a huge Beatles fan. Go buy “Stop the Clocks,” and listen to the song “The Masterplan” and try to tell me Noel Gallagher isn’t an incredible songwriter.

“LOVE” does what it was supposed to do and it does it brilliantly.

In other words, this disc is SICK SICK SICK!

As Joe strummer famously said, “ phoney Beatle mania has bittern the dust” enough said. Why does rolling stone hate Oasis so much? They never have a good word to say about them. There a decent band, Get over it!!!

Love is a Great Remix and blend of classic Beatles songs, Oasis is a Beatles copy band and if not for the Beatles would not Exist,

If they Came out with a fresh album instead of a greatest hits package I could see them trying to plug their new album but not by putting down The Beatles new album. I hope The Beatles blow them away on the charts so they can really stick it up their ass’s.

Rolling Stone is a joke. Im no Oasis fan but they have a fair point on ‘Love’ I just got love and its terrible, complete waste of money. I really hope U2 and Oasis chart higher than this drivel.

Talk about twisting the story, you cant really beat Rolling Stone on this one.

Drivel and persiflage…….it’s moot subjective crap….or as John Lennon would say…”it’s all dick!”…

i think the gallaghers are passed giving a shit against such a narrow minded ‘music’ paper. RS is a laughing stock outside the US!! FACT, why can’t RS jsut come out and state their problem with oasis and british bands in general..

I think it’s important to point out that the reason Oasis is compared to The Beatles so often is because it was, indeed, the Gallaghers themselves who initially compared THEMSELVES to the Beatles. To me, this is the ultimate act of self-grandizing…comparing oneself to anything innovative. A few questions: Did Oasis turn the pop music world on it’s ear with a completely new sound? No. Did they revolutionize the actual structure of a pop song? No. Did they help invent modern recording techniques? No. Has nearly their entire catalog stood the test of time? It’s debatable. Did Oasis change the way people dressed, thought and listened to music, becoming pop-culture icons in the process? No. The point is that it is absurd for ANY young act to compare themselves to The Beatles. It was a different time, and thankfully, the four guys from Liverpool changed music and the world forever and all before they turned 30! What’s more is that they did it with grace and dignity. More than I can say for the snivelling brothers Gallagher.

i personally don’t like oasis at all, and am a massive beatles fan, but i don’t see a problem with this man’s comments. if he doesn’t like the album, so what i dont think he’s trying to demote it I think he just flat out thinks its a bad remix, and although i haven’t heard it, it doesn’t sound that exciting. i don’t really care what a bunch of engineers can do to a beatles song, its nothing new in my opinion

First of all, have heard several tracks off that Love album and they sound sort of refreshing.

Nothing I’d never say bout Oasis.

They have one decent track, Don’t look in back in anger, and might have more if Noel sang more songs.

As far as bringing rock back, give me a break… And what does Coldplay and rock have in common?

There are so many superior bands to come from UK, Supergrass, Radiohead, Super Furry Animals, hell even Blur to name a few.

But I like to read their amusing dimwit interviews. Like Liam said in interview he thinks band/music is not good if it doesn’t sound like some classic pop/rock band…

Some of the more recent comments are borderline insane “I saw the Beatles in ‘64, i saw The Pistols in ‘78″ Riiiiight. Ok, then you’re definitely an expert !!

The question and answer session of “Did Oasis invent recording techniques” ; “Did Oasis set the world on its ear” is even more laughable – the Beatles did all that and more and it means nothing when you’re actually listening to their music – you either dig it or you don’t , all the rest is merely window dressing and historical fact.

There are silent movies that are more significant than what’s playing at my multiplex , i’m still going to my multiplex to see a movie today – knowwhatimean?

Said it before, I’ll say it again – the Beatles were great and for an 18 month stretch in 94-95 so were Oasis. Particularly their debut which can stand with any record in the Rock era.

Side note : RS only hates Oasis sometimes. lead writer Rob Sheffield is a pretty huge admirer of the first 2 records and “The Masterplan” collection. Just read their bio on the RS site people.

If you haven’t heard LOVE yet, don’t criticize. I can’t believe I’m saying this but if you can somehow try and hear it with fresh ears, there should be no more arguing over what the greatest Beatles album of all time is. It’s LOVE.

At the very least, this should render all of the other compilation albums (62-66, 67-70, 1) obsolete.

It may not be necessary but sometimes you CAN reinvent the wheel.

And it’s just as valid.

Get LOVE.

Then decide.

And if you have the equipment, listen to the 5.1 mix in the special edition. It’s simply awe-inspiring.

Oh and on what planet have Super Furry Animals ever made anything as good as “Definitely maybe” because it’s never been on planet Earth.

Supergrass are a fine band, and radiohead weell they don’t play Rock & Roll, so i don’t care, but let’s dispel this myth that there were better bands than Oasis among their UK peers right now. There weren’t. In 94-95 no one in the Uk could touch them – the world actually. They were the world’s best band.

And it wasn’t even close.

i wonder if people have actually heard the records at this point – because the posts suggest otherwise.

At least Oasis is still alive. DEAD BEATLES LOSE.

Hey rollingstoned….The reason the Beatles set the world on it’s ear is BECAUSE people listened to the music. The reason for my Q&A was to illustrate that for a Gallagher to actually compare himself to such a revolutionary act is rediculous. Being a musician myself, I know better than to be so egotistical, particularly in a public forum. It’s time to grow up Gallaghers.

beatles circus remix vs. un-original tired songs… well, i go for the beatles at least it will make me smile. oasis? pathetic losers.

Shifty , I think you’re missing the point – it’s that very arrogance that made Oasis, that very “we’re great – deal with it” attitude – it made them, at one time a great band. This isn’t a hospitality contest – they were loud, obnoxious drunken and brillaint, at least at the start.

The Beatles set the world on it’s ear because of their music yes, but not simply because of it. It also has to with the era, the politics and the times. Sure they shaped the world – but their legend was shaped by the world too.

To hold the fact that Oasis emerged in an entirely different world 30 years later when there were 3 million bands and the Beatles had already happened against them is ridiculous.

This basically comes down to my teenage pop music is better than your teenage pop music.

both were/ are great in their own life times.

pointless debate.

both were/ are top of their game in their own lifetime.

pointless debate

Oasis werent saying they are better then the Beatles…. they just dont like Love…. Damn cant they have an opinion?

All very good points, rollingstoned. I suppose I just take issue with the sheer arrogance. I think the Beatles are only as vital as they have become because of many external factors (political and social climate, etc.). I’m just troubled when one artist compares himself to another. It’s pointless and dangerous. However, being a musician I feel comfortable in claiming that The Beatles did far more to change music and the way it’s written, played, recorded and enjoyed. Good debating with you.

Rolling Stone will always back the older bands. They’re the only ones they throw on the cover. Some say the Gallagher Brothers should grow up. I say Rolling Stone grow up.

Uh Evan, No i’m not. 1 of the Beatles 1st records we’re American pop covers.

Definitely Maybe & Morning Glory are probably one of the best 1-2 punches ever by anyone.

Half the people here hate Oasis to hate Oasis w/out ever hearing 75% of their stuff. Most of us on here probably realize that the music that ISN’T released as singles (especially in U.S.) is better than the singles. Why not give ‘Stop The Clocks’ a chance. Better than 95% of the bands out today…….and this disc is skipping a lot.

well anyway Oasis sucks ass and the Beatles were an important step in building the rock/pop sound we know today, but ever since, other bands have been at least as important. Greatest hits are for suckers and corporate thieves.

I’m dismayed that so many of you simply are too naive to understand that there never could be anyone close to the Beatles in 1)great, great music, 2)cultural signifance, 3) innovation. Remember, when they came out, there was no one like them. Oasis? Please!!

PS – the fact that we still have a genius like George Martin who can make a record like “Love” makes me a grateful music lover. He should be known and revered as much as some of you guys revere lesser people like……Oasis.

blah blah blah

w*nkers!!!!

I just want to chime in that even though I feel this particular Beatles release is pointless (to me, I am too used to the original releases – I can see where someone else may find it intriguing), I like the idea behind it. There’s no denying that many people will get their first taste of the Beatles through it and thats a good thing.

I am not as down on best of’s and greatest hits as most people. I think they serve a purpose – if they’re done well they can make you see a band in a different light.

“Stop the Clocks” is pretty solid but it’s missing my fave Oasis song (”Sad Song”).

Here’s a test for the Oasis haters – do a search on youtube for “Oasis Sad Song Jools Holland” and tell me if that is not one of the best songs you have ever heard……and that song was left off of “Definitely Maybe”!! – That’s how many great tunes they had back in ‘94.

Cheers.

First thought, it’s the Gallagher brothers, they’re going to talk no matter what. Even if you have a muzzle over the mouths and are sodomized, they will find a way to communicate to the last detail about anything and anyone… and for the most part, it’s hilarious because I don’t know how you could ever take what they say seriously.

Second thought, Love is pointless. Yes, it’s being used for Cirque de Soleil, and it’s mix-matching tracks, etc. That doesn’t forgive the fact that it just seems like another marketing ploy by EMI to capitalize on the Beatles. Now, give me new material by the Beatles that was dug up in some catacombs beneath the Cavern Club in Liverpool, yes, I would buy it. But Love… yeah, no.

Third thought, yes, Stop the Clocks was just a way to fulfill their contract with Sony, and yeah, I don’t like the playlist either. But in either case, the Gallaghers have a point, Love provides nothing new, nothing revelatory. It’s a mindless exercise for those diehards that will buy anything Beatles.

I say don’t buy either because they’re not worth the cold, hard cash that you slave over 5-6 days a week.

You get over it.

this RS story is a waste of time. 12 years of the same junk – getting music fans all riled up about what oasis said, the ole beatles comparison bit, har har. Really, who cares? Let Liam and Noel have their opinion, we all obviously have ours.

All the people in the anti Oasis group. Find me a Oasis song that rips off The Beatles. You Can’t !

Somone said before, I listen to the beatles because of Oasis. I think there is a genuine statement there. I have all the Oasis songs on ‘Stop the Clocks’ so I probably would buy the Beatles instead. It would be something new.

rolling stone’s ability to miss the point is staggering. hey guys: give up pretending to be rock journalists and stick and stick to the jessica alba covers.

No YOU get over it, dick!!

The first 3 Oasis albums are pop-rock perfection. Yes, even “Be Here Now”, the 3rd album, whips ass.

The Gallagher brothers were/are what the rock world has been lacking for years….rock stars with attitude! Let ‘em say what they want, at least they have the balls to say SOMETHING.

Split a 12-pack and a joint with a friend and catch an Oasis concert. You’ll be really happy you did…trust me.

Fuck the Beatles

Whether or not ‘Love’ was a proper project is open for debate. However, what is undebatable is the sound. WOW! This CD sounds brilliant. It begs for the whole Beatles catalogue to be remastered NOW!

Good point Craig. When Fergie has been on the cover the same times as Oasis, whether you like them or not, its pathetic

SO AFTER THE GREAT 80`S DEBATE CONCERNING DURAN DURAN AND SPANDAU BALLET WE HAVE THIS. GREAT TO SEE AFTER ALL THESE YEARS THAT CRAP LIKE THIS STILL INSPIRES…QUALITY JOURNALISM. ROLLING STONE IS RUN BY THOSE WHO RUIN THE MUSIC BUSINESS, SELF OPINIONATED FRUSTRATED MUSICIANS WHO THINK THAT THEY CAN MAKE OR BREAK A BAND. THE LOT OF YOU CAN KISS MY BASS.

First off i need to point out i am a big fan of both bands. I think we all have to appreciate the Love album was born out of a vegas show not a new album or new compliation i have heard it but i am not rushing out to buy it as we all have the back catalogue. Oasis is listed as a greatest hits (and i now my greatest hits wont be the same as the next man’s – but thats the great thing about music) but the track list is badly put together and not a true reflection of their greatest hits. Noel Gallagher will all ways open his grid on any given subject as in his world any publicity is good publicty .Saying he turned it off after 5 tracks is no big deal its just been said to provoke a response but the question is will it provoke a big enough responce to affect the sales of the album.

I love both bands. I can honestly say Oasis circa 94′-96′ inspried me to go back and buy Revolver, etc. Hell, I even like BHN by Oasis, the album that supposedly ended Brit Rock. I think RS does hold some animus toward Oasis for whatever reason. Oasis, however, do make themselves an easy target with some of their unfiltered remarks. The Beatles are sacred ground to millions of people, but I think the Gallagher Brothers’ comments regarding “Love” are somewhat overstated, and RS is making more out of it than is really there. I find it somewhat refreshing to hear those remarks in a day and age when image is everyting and everyone has a PR person. I really think the Brothers Gallagher don’t care what they say. In the end, listening to music is a subject experience which does not lend itself easily to objectively declaring a winner, unless you count the record sales or montior the charts. Music is art, and art, at its best, is a reflection of ourselves and/or our world. Cheers!

Why is arrogance acceptable for some bands and others are ripped for it? Any type of music or band that’s ever been “fringe” needs a good dose of arrogance to prove it not only belongs but is here to stay.
Besides, tickle fights amongst pop rock bands are the weakest EVER. They’re all destined for elevators and muzak everywhere, let’s tip a pint and move on.

I disagree with anyone who thinks that LOVE is a “non-album.” I have been listening to it since yesterday. It contains some absolutely brilliant and amazing recreations of these songs, which I’ve listened to countless times in their original forms. And some of the new productions just sound unbelievable. This is a good product.

Oasis stole The Beatles haircuts , Ringo`s son quit Oasis to join The Who. If you have`nt heard within without you/ Tommorrow never knows from Love then you don`t know what you`re talking about . If you`re going to put down Love at least listen to the whole cd and make a judgement not one or two tracks . I can`t stop listening to it the way it flows from song to song AMAZING.

Let me first say that I am a huge Oasis fan. I am however a bigger Beatles fan. That said, both albums are as your article stated “non-albums” because they are both regurgitated; one with original interpretations, the other just regurgitated. The Gallaghers know how to stoke the flames, which is all they were doing, as usual.. Can we all agree this is how they market themselves and get on with our day? Never take those dudes seriously – How can you when you realize as much as they may be faves to a lot of people, they are still just a GUILTY PLEASURE to even more people! I’m bored by this back and forth about BLOODCLOT BULLSHIT!

“Uh Evan, No i’m not. 1 of the Beatles 1st records we’re American pop covers.”

Okay Kev, that may be true, but it’s still better than ANYTHING put out by Oasis. Y’know why? Because if it wasn’t for the Beatles, there’d be NO OASIS. Oasis is just a carbon copy rip-off of the Beatles.

i’ve heard or bought every oasis album. I’ve seen them live recently on their last tour. I have come to this conclusion, THEY ARE WASHED UP! ONE OF THE WORST LIVE SHOWS I HAVE EVER SEEN. TO SAY FUCK THE BEATLES AND YAY FOR OASIS ALREADY PROVES U DONT KNOW SHIT ABOUT MUSIC. YOUR JUST A JADED LOSER WHO BITCHES ABOUT EVERYONE WHO LIKES OLD MUSIC SO U HATE THE BEATLES TO TRY TO BE DIFFERENT. GUESS WHAT? YOUR STUPID! OASIS’S LAST 3 ALBUMS HAVE SUCKED AND SUCKED BIG TIME, IF U LIKE THEM THAN HAVE YOUR HEARING CHECKED! LOVE IS BETTER THAN THE GREATEST HITS PACKAGE BECAUSE OASIS HASNT HAD A HIT SINCE 1996 AND IT WILL STAY THAT WAY! SO OASIS LOVERS TAKE YOUR NEW ALBUM AND SHOVE IT!

for new music

http://www.myspace.com/elfsh u

The writer of that article is the one talking rubbish. For a start Zak Starkey was drummer of the Who (For nearly 10 years!) before he joined Oasis so he never quit Oasis for the Who.

Also he has a go at Oasis for their ignorant critism when he has just used an article to do the same by blindly critising them in return. What a waste of an article, when he just uses it to have a go at a band he clearly dislikes.

“You have a non-record out. They have a non-record out. But they are the fucking Beatles, so they win. Get over it.”

Your the one with the problem mate. You get over it.

Btw both Oasis and The Beatles rock, its just the love album is needless when you have the back catalogue the beatles do.

I havent heard Love yet, can anyone give a little review/opinion for me. I’ll probably get it anyway cos I’m a Beatles fan, but I’d like to hear what other fans think outside of the Beatles/Oasis argument…which is I guess the whole point of this article anyway, so excuse for goin off topic.

The Beatles are the inspiration in some way, shape or form for every rock band since. So in closing Oasis do not only have no right to be mentioned in the same breath as the Beatles, they have no right to be mentioned with most of their comtemparies, because everybody knows Radiohead are the beatles of comtempary music

i think noel’s and liam’s comments are rooted not only in their natural ability to offend but also the idea that the original beatle’s recordings are, like, holy to them, part of what inspired them to be musicians, so they’re not really interested in ‘re-worked’ versions, which i can somewhat understand. what’s funny to me is while the gallagher’s seem merely unimpressed, whoever wrote the RS article (notice they hide their name) seems downright shocked, outraged and embittered, playing right into the gallagher’s hands, providing them free press in the process. what a bloody fool…

I seriously think if more people heard all of Oasis’ songs, especially the early output, the acoustic b-sides and cuts from the Masterplan, they would not have this hatred.

Beatles are better. Always will be, but Oasis does not get enough respect in the US. It’s the Gallagher’s own fault, but people don’t give them a chance now.

Oasis is a good band, -i can’t stand its music- but I think that noel’s ability to write good songs is evident. Trying to compare them or any, I mean ANY other band to the Beatles is a pointless exercise.

Blame noel for constantly compare his band to the beatles, or himself to lennon, It really diminishes his work. And his puerile comments allienates a lot of people that surely could enjoy his music.

I agree wholeheartedly with the article. Oasis is a good band–especially the early stuff, but they have proved through their recent releases that they were a flash in the pan. I understand that they are sick and tired of being compared to the Beatles, thats a tough cross for anyone to carry, but here is some advice. Do the same thing that Springsteen did when they compared him to Bob Dylan–write amazing music and shut people up. There lies the underlying problem, Oasis needs to talk shit because their music stopped doing the talking for them about 7 years ago.

who is the Dumb ass that said zak starky(Ringos son) Quit Oasis to Tour with the Who??? Emmmmmm No Zak has always been with The Who.. He Is Still with Oasis as well.. Get your facts straight Dickhead

RS is washed up. The bias in the article is (Oasis) something out of the fox network. Just report, let us decide.

Someone should mention that it’s not the Gallaghers going to find a reporter to tell them how much they hate the Beatles album. It’s not the Gallaghers calling up a newspaper to get their opinion. The press and media will seek out Noel and Liam to get opinions like these. They have opinion… they get asked… they answer. And apparently that’s a bad thing somehow.

Gave Rolling Stone something to talk about, I guess.

Ok Evan, if you could ask John & Paul they would say w/out Elvis and Chuck Berry there would never be the Quarrymen and The Beatles.

The Beatles had a drummer, two guitars, a bass and a singer.It Wasn’t THAT original.

Also I still think you missed the point of the article. Did Oasis slam The Beatles or a newly produced mash up recording for Cirque De Soliel.

I’m not going to defend Oasis anymore, I have everything they have recorded and anyone I have introduced them to besides knowing Wonderwall & Champagne Supernova has said they were amazed how good they are. Everyone bites on their attitudes and things they say and I think it’s funny.

Listen to: Slideaway, Masterplan, Acquiesce,Supersonic,Live Forever,Fade Away,Rock ‘N Roll Star,Columbia,Morning Glory, Champagne, Wonderwall,Don’t Look Back In Anger,Dy’a Know What I Mean,Fuckin’In The Bushes,Gas Panic,Little By Little, Songbird,Guess God Thinks I’m Abel,Part Of The Queue, Let’s All Make Believe and tell me these are bad.

Radiohead fans? Please!! Who wants to get the schematic sheet out to listen to rock ‘n roll. Utter noise after Ok Computer.

just because the beatles were first does not necessarily make them better than everyone that comes after them….First, the Stones were better, so were Zeppelin….I can name tons of bands that were better than the Beatles, and Oasis is one of them…

Isacc and Jacob..you just noticed now that Rolling Stone is biased??? where have you been?

Hey Joseph, check out ‘Don’t Believe The Truth’ by Oasis. Came out in 2005 and was EXCELLENT.

Just b/c U.S. radio doesn’t play it, not Oasis fault. Hell I don’t hear AMERICAN bands that were huge 94-96 on radio anymore either.

I agree that the person that wrote the RS article is a chicken shit for not putting his/her name down. Also, please stop with the “Radiohead is the modern day Beatles” shit. Please. Enough with the post modern alienation mumbo jumbo.

As if anyone these days would judge a band for their PR… oh wait.

Anyway, the beatles win? don’t think so; if they were still together they’d be as cocky as Oasis, or even worse…

Oasis is the best!

Oasis isn’t fit to change George Martin’s urinal pucks.

Their entire ouvre is nothing but a bunch of pale Beatles knock offs without the creativity, personality or originality.

As if hearing that anemic retard whining through his nose in an attempt to sound like John Lennon on top of their trite descending bassline non-songs wasn’t bad enough.

“You aren’t even Pete Best or Jane Asher.” I think Noel Gallagher has just a bit more talent than Pete fucking Best. The article was signed “Rolling Stone.” The person that wrote the article is a wiesel and doesn’t have the courage of his/her convictions to pin his/her name to it.

George Martin called Noel Gallagher the finest songwriter of his generation. Don’t believe me? Look it up.

It’s amazing the nonsense that’s spewed by people…..”descending bass-line non-songs” ooooh musican talk. Color me impressed.

Oh, and how can anybody say Oasis songs have “no personality”?

The band has a very distinct style – at least in the early years – loud, brash guitars, snide lyrics, shot through with occasional romantic longing (think “Slide Away”).

Again, I’m thinking people haven’t heard the records and just hate them for their big mouths. Not seeing many people take the youtube challenge , search for : “Oasis Sad Song Jools Holland”

I’d like to hear some thoughts from those who think Oasis weren’t ever great about this song…….if you don’t think it’s brilliant, i don’t want to play with you!!

Noel’s going to sue.

>

Yeah, that “quote” returns a total if 16 hits on Google, all of which are copies of the same wikipedia article that says “citation needed” next to the alleged quote, as it doesn’t actually exist anywhere else.

>

Yeah, imagine that: “musician talk” when talking about music!

So it is “nonsense” to use musical terms when talking about music?

That’s just *idiotic*.

Oh, wait. I see: when you said > you were referring to your next statement:

> which is clearly nonsense.

Then again, maybe you really do think musical terms shouldn’t be used when discussing music.

After all, that kind of leaves people who don’t know anything about music out of it.

My son quit oasis because they stink . Zak grew up with The who and went back home .

The headline isn’t backed up by the story. Oasis didn’t critisise the Beatles at all , just this remix album. I heard Strawberry Fields on the radio and thought it was awful. But whether its good or not has missed the point. Noel G never slagged off the Beatles as is implied. Shameful, Rolling Stone

don`t look back in anger rips off imagine big time . oasis act like a couple of desperate rappers trying to pump some excitement to sell a new cd. i hate rappers

Beatles always rule, no matter where or when. I happen to think Oasis is a very good band but their mistake is that they like to associate themselves with the Fab. They shouldn’t, nobody should. Groups like the Rolling Stones, the Who, Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, the Eagles, Fleetwood Mac, U2, REM, Pearl Jam plus artists like Bob Dylan, Elton John, Billy Joel, Eric Clapton, Phil Collins, Bruce Springsteen, Tom Petty, Bob Seger and Jackson Browne may all be 2nd tier to The Beatles…but Oasis? Perhap they are 4th or 5th tier.

Anyway, LOVE is superb. It adds new life to the geatest work of the 20th Century as we live the 21st.

That Liam just can’t stay out of trouble!:

http://liam.gallagh er.wasarrested.com/?loc=Manche ster&gen=m&story=12

The George Martin quote is from the 1995 British Music Awards. I saw him say it onstage to Noel – I was actually at the show. So, maybe the date of his saying it and the fact that it wasn’t in “print” is the reason for the low Google listings.

And, I don’t mind you using musician talk – but it’s like saying “Schindler’s List” isn’t funny enough – it’s misguided. The appeal of Oasis lies not in the technical aspect of the music, so why bring it up?

Here is an Oasis b-side that many people have not heard, but is a favorite among fans:

http://youtube.com/watc h?v=wOBxCByjFaE

Fan made video, but the song is quality.

Don’t Belive the Rolling Stone Article!

who ever wrote the rs article is an idiot!! They aren’t talking shit on the beatles!! Noel and Liam don’t like the job that Niles and George Martin did on the mash up!! Honestly I thought they could have been more imaginitve considering with what they had to work with!! Anyone that says oasis are washed up are ignorant because they havent heard Don’t belive the truth!! It just as good as they first one! If you dont think so wash ears out!!

To put it plain and simple Oasis has been writing the same song over and over again because almost everything they record sounds like “Wonderwall”. Until they can write their “second song” they need to shut their pie holes!

This is`nt the 1st time oasis has talked smack on The Beatles. Don`t you remember when they called George a nipple because when George was asked what he thought of oasis he said the best thing about them is there drummer and then they also called paul senile .as you see they will say and do anything to be in the press . when your music is`nt strong enough they have to slag real artist. and if you notice on there last cd there are no pictures of zak because zak would`nt commit to them . Time has shown that there desparate for attention . By the was Love sounds great. so crisp and clean. i can`t wait to hear the entire beatles catalog updated

Oh come on ……they talked smack about George because George started it. And George’s comments were pretty funny too. So, were Noel’s (They called George the silent beatle, maybe he should stay silent). When George finally met Noel they got along fine……I think George’s feelings were hurt when Oasis was shattering Beatles sales records in 94-95, no band since the Beatles had that kind of acclaim. In fact, “Morning Glory” is the second biggest selling UK album ever in world wide sales (behind “Pepper” I think).

Oh and to say that Oasis needs to write their second song is absurd….by the time they got to “Wonderwall” they already had a string of classic singles and a classic album to their credit.

And finally, Oasis don’t talk trash because their music can’t stand up artistically. The two things have nothing in common with each other. Johnny Rotten talked trash about Johnny Thunders – this kind of stuff is all in good humor, and goes back as long as there’s been pop music.

I love the Beatles but the reaction of posters here is exactly the reason so many younger people can’t stand them – lighten up. Let the myth die, let the sacred cow die and celebrate them for what they were – a great band with a new record that Noel Gallagher doesn’t like.

Oasis are one of the only few bands that have been great since nirvana.You can always count on good ol’ rock n’ roll.As if noel give’s a fuck what people think, the man has more money than anyone on this board and most people in general and when you have that kind of cash you dont have to give a fuck what anyone say’s or think’s for that matter!

Oasis write better B-Sides than most band’s albums.The beatles were then and this is now.At least noel had imput on the new record where as the beatles, or remaining beatles did not.

if you cant write better songs than noel then shut yer mouth.If you cant do it then you have no right to judge someone who can.No one on this board can write better and if so let’s hear it!

“I love the Beatles but the reaction of posters here is exactly the reason so many younger people can’t stand them – lighten up. Let the myth die, let the sacred cow die and celebrate them for what they were – a great band with a new record that Noel Gallagher doesn’t like.”

Again with the tortured logic. First you say that music itself isn’t the important thing about music, now you say that people stating that Oasis are lame causes young people to dislike the Beatles! Or is it people that like LOVE? To ensure that young people like the Beatles, I should tell them that their record is “rubbish”?

*whistle*!

So, if we all were gushing Oasis fans then young people would like the Beatles more?

Also, what about the people who like Oasis music, but are disgusted by the brothers retard shooting off their cavernous, arrogant mouths? Are they turning older people off of the Beatles? Or the people that don’t like the Beatles, but still think Oasis are imbeciles? Are they preventing young folks from liking Oasis? Any of these scenarios makes as much sense as your post.

You seem to conflate things. Let me try and seprerate them for you:

1. Oasis are middling posers with a tiny, unremarkable ouvre of forgettable, warmed over Beatles knock offs. Either that, or they are Gods.

2. The two idiot brothers in Oasis are arrogant, loud mouthed retards who lack the musical sensibiities to even appreciate listening to the Beatles, much less produce music in anywhere near the same league. The evidence for this can be found in remainder bins across North America.

3. Regardless, going on public record shooting your mouth off about LOVE being “rubbish” while you are trying to peddle your collection of hits from your 2 year career is the kind of thing that people may make negative comments about.

4. If George Martin did actually praise Noel so nicely, then the little pinhead is even more of an asshole for slagging Martin’s work which, of course, easily eclipses anything Oasis will ever be capable of.

There are many teenage and college age Beatles fans I find on music review sites Beatles fan sites and John,Paul and George solo fan sites. Also to the guy that said Paul McCartney doesn’t ruin A Hard Day’s Night with good songs like Michelle,Good Day Sunshine,Obla di and even Maxwel Silver’s Hammer, and Lovely Rita I happen to like these songs. And also Paul wrote some really great early rockers like the great blues rocker from late 1964,She’s A Woman and I’m Down which was pretty hard rock for 1965 and of course Helter Skelter which has been called by many to be the first real heavy metal song on The Beatles great 1968 White Album. On A Hard Day’s Night he wrote the great Can’t Buy Me Love,The beautiful And I Love Her and Things We Said Today.
To the guy who said he thinks that The Rolling Stones,Led Zeppelin and OOasis are all better than The Beatles and that you can name tons of Bands you think are better than The Beatles, you are so in the minority and most rock and music critics as well as well known rock artists would tell you you’re wrong!

Who did as much creative,inovative,inventive and great quality acclaimed songs and albums that were all different styles of music and did them so well as The Beatles did in just an 8 year recording career,NO One! Read Rolling Stone’s and The All Music Guide’s biography of The Beatles they say it all! And as I mentioned The Rolling Stones were big fans and good friends with The Beatles Mick Jagger even came to their recording of their song Baby You’re A Rich Man in May 1967 just to stand on the sidelines and watch and listen to them record it,and his name is on the tape box because he even sang on the song at the end. He hung out a lot with John Lennon in the 1970’s too and there are several online pictures of them together. Paul and Linda were at Mick Jager’s 1971 wedding to Bianca. Also I have found many online music polls The Beatles vs The Rolling Stones and even to this day over 36 years after they broke up The Beatles always win! And these polls are not on Beatles fan sites but other sites.

And RJohn Paul Jones,John Bonham and Pete Townsend all played together with Paul on his 1979 Wings album Back To The Egg they also played in the December 1979 Wings concert for the people of Kampuchea and Pete Townsend also played on two songs on Paul’s 1986 solo album Press To Play along with big Beatles fan Phil Collins. And Oasis have always been big Beatles fans and I doubt they would agree with you that they are better.

I really wish there was a edit button on here because then I could correct my typing mistakes! And also Revolver is *not* the only solid Beatles album as some guy ignorantly commented,The Beatle made so many great quality albums besides Revolver that have all been widely rightfully acclaimed,like A Hard Day’s Night,Rubber Soul,Sgt Pepper,The White Album,and Abbey RRoad.

Fab4Fan – I’m the guy that said Mccartney ruins almost every post “Hard day’s Night” record with a crap tune or 2……I agree Pauls written some great tunes as well but I’m a Lennon guy.

The context of my post was that AHDN is the best Beatles album because it’s the most exuberant, least self conscious and doesn’t have a McCartney dud on it for my taste. I do not agree that the Beatles got better as they went on….I think Rubber Soul and Revolver are classics marred by a dud track or two, Sgt. Pepper is innovative but outdated, the White Album is half great and half filler and Abbey Road is a good record but not a great one……AHDN is a perfect Rock album to me – no psychedlic BS, no “All You Need Is Love” hippy dippy garbage, and no Paul sappy tunes……I love the Beatles. Love ‘em and even I have no problem bad mouthing them – it’s not blasphemy. It’s pop music.

And for the record, Noel Gallagher has played with Pete Townsend, Paul Weller, and….um, Paul McCartney (you can see them play “Come Together” on Youtube quite easily).

I am a Beatles fan, have been since age 5. I LOVE (no pun intended) the new disc. I think it’d make much more sense to people who may pan it (TheDumbfuckGallagers) if they actually SAW the show! I like it for the fact that Sir George Martin and his son Giles knew they’d have to handle it with kid gloves and they did. I also like some of the mixes, if not all. For instance; I Want You (She’s So Heavy) weaved with Helter Skelter. A masterpiece period, end of sentence. Oasis is already a non-entitey so why bother with ANY kind of comparison? Let’em crawl back into the warm pint of beer they crawled out of. BEATLES FOREVER Oasis NEVER!

Duhhh i`m a lennon guy ..dude lennon/mccartney are a team that will last forever..two sides of the same coin..lennon has written many sappy song ..and he`s been dead for 25 freaking years and he`s not coming back..paul on the other hand is alive and can kick your ass..he can still do it all get over yourself..if you think the beatles only had one great lp then your an idiot..

Does everyone have to like the Beatles? If there were no Beatles, there would be no N’Sync or Backstreet Boys.

Henry, I am hoping everything goes ok with your lobotomy.

I did not say the Beatles had only great album, I said AHDN was their best album – did you miss the part where I called Rubber Soul & Revolver classics ?

As for Lennon/McCartney being flipsides of the same coin…..um, sometimes yes, but not really. You wouldn’t give Lennon any credit for “Yesterday” so why should he take the blame for the travesty that is “Rocky Raccoon”?

Sure there are tunes that are clearly Lennon/McCartney but AHDN is dominated by Lennon – it’s his attude all over that record, and his voice (which I like better) – he sings 9 out of the 13 tracks.

As for Paul still being able to “bring it” :

Paul’s post Beatles career is exactly the sort of artistic decline artists fear. Paul post-1970 isn’t too different from Noel Gallagher post-1996.

“Paul’s post Beatles career is exactly the sort of artistic decline artists fear. Paul post-1970 isn’t too different from Noel Gallagher post-1996.”

Look, I am a John fan with an almost visceral dislike of Paul, but his very flatulance is no doubt 1000 times more musical than anything Noel Gallagher has ever eked out.

Saw Oasis live, and they were just brutally *tedious*. Boring, arrogant and impersonal. Dreary mush with hardly a discernable difference from one dirge to the next. Appallingly lame, even by bar band standards.

Got dragged against my will to see Paul, who, as I mentioned, I always disliked. He put on an amazing show. Exuberant, energetic, musically diverse, etc One of if not the best concerts I have ever seen.

The difference?

Oasis acted as if they were there to be worshipped for their genius, and were barely able to conceal their contempt for the peasants in the audience.

Paul acted as if nobody knew who he was, and expended every ounce of energy he had to connect with the audience and win them over, which he managed to do with even Paul haters like myself.

If Oasis were even a fraction as good as they think they are, then perhaps they might have lasted a bit longer. As it stands, they were discarded along with the Spin Doctors, Hootie, and other curiousities long ago. Nobody I know listens to Oasis. My teenage neices and nephews have never heard of them. But everyone I know listens to the Beatles.

Anyhow, I guess I could have simply said:

Beatles: Groundbreaking, classic, era defining. Will never be forgotten.

Oasis: Derivative flash in the pan footnote mostly forgotten already and unheard of by most of Earth.

Tim – Look , I’m sorry you saw a bad Oasis show. I’ve seen them be awful live too (and great at other times).

But you can’t just state stuff that isn’t true – Oasis are not forgotten despite the excellence of taste of your nieces and nephews. They are still a huge band in most of the world – and are still pretty successful in the US (last album charted at number 12 – that’s not huge, but it’s not nothing either – it ain’t Spin Doctors/Hootie irrelevance). They sell out Madison Square Garden – still.

“Stop the Clocks” will outsell “Love” in the UK this week – and probably in most countries (excluding the US) – it will even do well here though, top 20 at least.

Almost every band in the current UK scene cites them as a huge influence (can’t say that about any of their peers – certainly not Blur) – they regularly win “Best Album of All Time” lists done around the world. Google search any recent UK album or single poll and you’ll see.

You don’t dig ‘em, ok – but that’s a judgement of their artistic worth – you can’t stretch it out to say they weren’t/aren’t successful.

I’m not going overboard in my defense, I’m just saying they made 2 great albums (especially the first – which is among the best records ever made – by anyone. Period.) and a bunch of great singles.

To suggest that Paul post-Beatles did anything that could touch Noel Gallagher in 94-96 is …..well to me it’s just crazy.

Hey, I am sure Oasis will do alright with their K-Tel album in the UK, although one could purchase their entire career at a second hand store for the same price. Ultimately, I guarantee LOVE will outsell it by millions.

Otherwise, I guess we can agree to disagree on the subjective matter of their merit.

I did find what Elton John said about Noel hilarious though:

“He’s an absolute tosser and he looks like Parker from ‘Thunderbirds’”

*chuckle*

ohhh Tim.

Oasis=flash in the pan? 50 million records worldwide isn’t flash in the pan.

Boring in concert MY ASS. I guess you want dance routines big video screens and fire, lights and explosions too. Go see N sync or KISS so you can have fun.

Dork.

Once again this article was not Oasis vs The Beatles.

What band that was big from 94-97 is even being talked about this much nowadays? Especially from The UK. Radioheads last three albums are NOISE…..of course if you are hipster doofus u can go stroke your beard to one of their concerts and pretend you know what the hell they are singing about.

Oasis rocks!

“Oasis=flash in the pan? 50 million records worldwide isn’t flash in the pan.”

Why not? There are plenty of forgotten pop stars who sold a pile of records once, and they were flashes in the pan. hence the term. Oasis was big for a short time in the 90s. There is no cross generational appeal to keep them relevant, and they’ve been through their bag of retread.

“Boring in concert MY ASS. I guess you want dance routines big video screens and fire, lights and explosions too. Go see N sync or KISS so you can have fun.

Dork.”

Oddly, there was a complete lack of “dance routines” or “fire, lights and explosions” at the Paul concert I compared Oasis to. Guess you’re a retard. Incidentally, I actually would prefer to see Kiss over Oasis, having seen both bands. In fact, you could start in the core of any city in North America and find a bar band that could smoke Oasis off the stage within walking distance. No lights, dancing or explosions required. That is how stupefyingly *boring* they were, on top of not acknowledging that the audience existed.

Moron.

“Once again this article was not Oasis vs The Beatles.”

No, it was Oasis vs George Martin, which is just as inane.

“What band that was big from 94-97 is even being talked about this much nowadays? Especially from The UK. Radioheads last three albums are NOISE…..of course if you are hipster doofus u can go stroke your beard to one of their concerts and pretend you know what the hell they are singing about.”

Radiohead are another over rated British band. Maybe they think they are Pink Floyd, judging by their attempts to reproduce Floyd’s most brain damaged era. Perhaps they will come out of it with a commercial milestone like Dark Side of the Moon, but they will have to learn how to play instruments first.

“Oasis rocks!”

Hey, whatever floats your boat.

I can’t even believe that this is being debated. Oasis vs. The Beatles? I never claimed that Oasis was a bad band, but…

Oasis has, to date, sold over 50 million albums worldwide (trailing Nana Mouskouri by 200 million, I might add).

By 1985 (twenty years ago), The Beatles had sold well over 1 billion albums. Imagine (pardon the pun) the totals now.

What’s more, try a little experiment. Ask 10 people in a third world country, where there is little media, if they’ve ever heard of the Beatles, then ask the same of Oasis.

You can not argue with the figures. The fact is that this is, to this day, one of the most well-known, popular acts in the world. Now consider that they disbanded almost 40 years ago.

Oasis deserves props, for sure, but comparing them to the single-most popular rock act (band) in modern pop culture is silly. Come on guys.

The Beatles win.

I don’t think anyone is disputing the fact that the Beatles are the bigger band in terms of sales.

I think what people are disputing is that the Beatles are indisputably the better band BECAUSE of sales.

This thread wasn’t really about who’s “better” it deteriorated into that of course but it always does. People just feel like the Beatles are shoved down their throats. I am as big a Beatles fan as anyone and even I’m sick of the “myth” around them – this sacred cow BS (”BlasphemY” if you say anything against them – come on, it’s freaking pop music).

You wouldn’t use Madonna’s sales as proof that she’s greater artistically than say Iggy Pop, so what do sales have to do with anything anyway. The only reason “50 million” Oasis record being sold came up is because someone disputed the fact that the band has sold a ton of records.

You like the Beatles better than Oasis, ok – maybe I do to. But I like “Definitely Maybe” as much as any Beatles record, and maybe even more – alot of people feel that way…..and they’re kind of sick of being told the way they feel is “wrong”.

“This thread wasn’t really about who’s “better” it deteriorated into that of course but it always does.”

Naw. This thread was about what a complete and utter idiot Noel Gallagher is to have shot his mouth off about George Martin. The fact that Oasis owes their entire microscopic career to having lamely tried to knock off a passable John Lennon imitation is definitely germaine to that.

So far, you have stated that actually talking about the music is not relevant when talking about music, that unless we all agree with Noel that the Beatles are “rubbish” that young people won’t like the Beatles, and that the fact that the Beatles have sold billions of records as opposed to Oasis selling 50 million has no bearing on whether Oasis is a flash in the pan when compared to them.

“People just feel like the Beatles are shoved down their throats.”

Really? Which people are you talking about?

You’ve lost the plot:

1. Oasis slags Sir George Martin in the hopes that people buy their pointless greatest hits package instead.

2. People point out that Oasis are a Beatles knock off that hasn’t made a decent record in 12 years, and that even then they couldn’t hold a candle to the Beatles, so maybe Noel should keep his giant mouth shut.

3. You madly dissemble and reinvent the argument as if your life depended on it defending wanklad’s moronic assertions.

Whatever. Noel Gallagher is a self important moron with delusions of greatness who really has not earned the right to talk shit about George Martin, who will be remembered long after you are the only living Oasis fan.

Life marches on.

THIS debate is “rubbish”…you cannot compare these bands. The whole beatles vs. Oasis thing is old, go back to 96 if your still into that kinda thing. The thing is, Oasis themselves, never claimed to be better then the beatles. The fact that they called an album that wasnt even made by THE beatles (unless george martin is the new and only member!) garbage, which what i’ve heard so far is being nice, is nothing big to get all pissy about.

Put it this way, Noel Gallagher knows his band is good, he knows the beatles are great. He also knows MUCH more about the beatles then anyone on the rolling stone staff or in this forum for that matter! When he claims Sgt peppers or abbey road or the white album is shit then you can have your ripping of Oasis. Until then, move on.

after reading some of the comments (and not all, cause their are alot)… it seems every person i meet thats from the UK holds Oasis in such high regard (and im guessing most of the oasis-defenders on this site are from the UK to), seriouly, they act like their fucking music pioneers or some shit. Now i agree with what Noel said, but to say that oasis are in anyway better then the beatles is complete SHIT!

I feel bad for anyone that writes for Rolling Stone.. ..That rags news and stance are like the annoying, dorky, strangely dressed, begging-to-be-cool, but ultimately extremely out of touch kid in the back of the class. This article was written not from a place of objetivity, or even opinion, but of obvious hate and disdain for the Gallagher brothers, and their band. The Gallaghers love the Beatles and John, you wanker, they just think this posthumous 2pac-like smattering just isn’t necessary, as the Beatles obviously got it right, years ago, and don’t need to be re-released — same I could say for Rolling Stone — go…AWAY.

Seriously… Noel is a huge Beatles-fan. And like many said before me: All Noel said was that he doesn’t like “LOVE”, but he loves The Beatles. This article is meaningless. And to put out an album, which consists of old material being remixed AGAIN, is kind of sad. I too, love The BEatles. Their contribution to music is amazing. But I’m not buying “LOVE”. And to slag of Oasis is really a cheap shot. I wonder if the writer of this article has even listened to Oasis. Oasis remains one of the greatest bands in modern time, and is a major influence on bans such as: The Killers, Jet, Coldplay, Libertines, Arctic Monkets and many more… Whoever wrote this shouldn’t write for a huge and respected magazine as Rolling Stone. Please…get yourself together, RS.

Who are these fucking amatuers writing these pieces.

If you’re going to be sarcastic and sound like a smart ass, at least be accurate.

The beatles are not the inspiration behind everything Oasis has done.

The Stone Roses are, you stupid hack. They used elements of the beatles but who the hell hasn’t?

One more point, RS is taking things out of context and trying to dig way to deep into harmless comments by Oasis.

So they don’t like the new album by the beatles, who friggen cares.

Rolling Stone is a waste of time, I would’nt wipe my arse on their shitty mag. At least the NME admit when they are wrong, like their original review of definitely maybe.
Practically every band that matters nowadays mentions Oasis as an inspiration, even Bono and the Edge have been quoted saying Oasis songs are in their all time classics.
Finally, when are people State side going to give quality the stamp of approval – Oasis, The Jam, Arctic Monkeys. Even your own bands gained respect everywhere else before you woke up to them – Nirvana, Killers, Kings of Leon, Strokes

WHO CARES

The truth is that Oasis isn’t a Beatles knockoff. We’re a Badfinger knockoff.

The only crime oasis committed was being born British. Rollingstone can not forgive the most influential band of the last decade for not being born American. Its eaten into them, they have been trying for the last decade to be-little their massive contribution to music by lazingly saying they are just Beatles facsimiles. Everone who actually listens to oasis and the Beatles (Both great bands and both very British by the way) don’t sound much alike. OK oasis do have some Beatleseque harmonies, and mention ‘letting things be’ quite a lot but so do many other bands. Come on be honest show me an oasis song and a Beatles song which are really that similar. oasis make no secret who their influences are but every band is influenced by some otehr band-it’s the way of things.
Rollingstone if you can’t recongnise oasis for what they are you just don’t have the right to call yourself a music magazine.

Rolling Stone – does anyone actually buy it? If so why? It refuses to acknowledge anything past the 70’s as meaningful. It’s so stuck in the past its a wonder it has a website.

Love is as much by the Beatles as The Elvis Presley Arena tour is by Elvis Presley. Both feature decades old recordings masquerading as the present. Sorry peole both Elvis and The Beatles died years ago, there is no bringing them back, no matter what the he marketing men say. I totally agree with oasis. Love is meaningless and is definetly not a beatles record.

Yes the Beatles were good but the thing is they were first. That doesn’t make them the best. Of the bands at that time I prefer the Who, Floyd, the Stones and say Zep. But oasis carry the torch and should be recognised for what they are. Definetly Maybe is staggering and re ignited my interest in music agfain after years of being bored. oasis will be seen as the best group in the last 30 years when history is written.

People please!

Everyone knows Oasis is shite.

There, I said it:

Oaisis = shite

Get it through your heads:

Nobody who lives anywhere but England gives a shit about Oasis.

Oh, and we haven’t made a good record in 12 years, and even then we pretty much sucked.

I’m just pissed because I have an incredibly tiny penis, and my face could stop time.

Also, I can’t play guitar.

Did I mention that I sing like I do because I have a clit in my nose?

Let’s just say Oasis lost points in my book.

I think they say good, because this kind of young managers as paul and martin and even george when alive had so many rubbish things in the charts just because there was a beatles trademark on those…

I’m a huge beatles fan and not an oasis fan, but I think this time they do right. I don’t need an other beatles record. It was all finished with the Abbey Road era… Antology, One, Love… they mean nothing to me.

If you ask me, it is the Gallagher Brothers who do not get the new Beatles CD, “Love”. Love is, as described, a “soundscape” of their recordings. It is meant to celebrate the music and spirit of the Beatles. It is not a definitive representation of their work and is not an attempt to take away from their original song catalogue. It does, however, bring to the forefront, the genius, artistry,and creativity behind the recordings. The musical soundscape of a band that has never been equaled. Both in songwriting skills, recording technique and performance. Their recordings have triumphantly stood the test of time. I never got the whole Oasis thing. I never once thought that they even remotely sounded like the Beatles. In fact, I always thought their material was less than par and certainly will not be listened to, thirty plus years from now. They certainly lack the Lennon / McCartney songwriting lustre that simply overflows with imaginative and complex genius. I just wish people would quit insulting the Beatles with their comaparison to Oasis. Their work is nothing but a mere fragmented shadow of a band they could only hope to mimic.

I’m a little confused Hank – you start off saying “If you ask me Oasis are the ones who don’t get Love”…..right which is what Noel said – he doesn’t get it (me either, and I love the Beatles).

Then you say that you never thought they sounded like the Beatles , but later you say they mimicking the Beatles? Which is it?

Also, you said 30 years from now no one will listen to Oasis – well I’m not so sure, I remember people saying that 10 years ago and 10 years later people still are.

I resent you trying to make Rock & Roll seem like some highfalutin Art form. It’s pop music. It’s teenage music. When you try to make it something else you kill what makes it special.

“McCartney, Townshend, Richards, my first album’s better than all their first albums. Even they’d admit that.”-Noel Gallagher

Now, what Beatle fan (hell, what human being) could stand for an arrogant, self-centered statement like this? Is this guy kidding? Can someone tell me what Noel did on the first record that warrants this statement?

Does he know that The Beatles first record was unlike anything EVER made prior to that? What is revolutionary about Oasis’ first record?

I’m not getting into a “who’s better” contest. However, I think that saying you first record is better that ANYTHING is disgusting.

I’m no idiot. I know they say contentious statements to get press, and it works. That still doesn’t make him cool in my book. He’s a spoiled little suck who complains, fights and acts like a child. Yeah, Lennon had his moments of childishness, but he more than made up for it by being one of the greatest humanitarians ever.

“I resent you trying to make Rock & Roll seem like some highfalutin Art form. It’s pop music. It’s teenage music. When you try to make it something else you kill what makes it special.”

The Beatles were teen music in 1962. They are far from that now. You can’t possibly lump The Beatles in with crap like N Sync and Britney Spears. Seriously. That’s beyond wrong.

More pearls of wisdom from the mouth of Noel….

‘Our band will go down in history as one of the greatest of all times …we’ll be a footprint in the history of rock music.’

“I was a superhero in the ’90s. I said so at the time.”

“Greens are f***ing hippies with no place in the world. They’ve been telling us for the last 50 years not to use aerosols or the sky’s going to fall in. Well – you’re the scientists, do something about it.”

i dunno why you yanks hate Oasis in the first place. iam a huge Beatles fan but Oasis is better for me ’cause they closer to my time and my heart. and Noel has a right to say anything as each of you. hes not a fucking american celebrity! bump

I’ve always thought that Oasis was a Beatles revue (and not a very good one at that). They did do some cool songs (Wonderwall, I thought was catchy in its own right.) However, they are not the surrogate Beatles that the Gallagher bros. have made themselves out to be, not even close. And I’d be willing to bet that the Beatles will continue be a very popular market long after Oasis has dried up.

Well, I actually do think the first Oasis record is better than the first Beatles, Stones and Who records. The first Who record is pretty bad – they were never really an album band anyway – they peaked with their mid-60s singles. The Beatles got great on their third record, same with the Stones.

I agree the first Beatles record was revolutionary – but that doesn’t mean much AFTER the revolution does it? He didn’t say his record was more significant – he said “better”.

“Definitely Maybe” is among the best records of all time without question – it is in my personal top 15 of all time. Read what I wrote again – I didn’t just say the Beatles weren’t as good as Oasis, so don’t say I did.

I do think it’s all teenage music. I don’t think of it as high Art. To me pop music doesn’t mean “crap” it means music for the masses. It’s in the same group since it isn’t classical – it isn’t classified as good based on certain agreed upon criteria (like how well it’s played or sung) – it’s classified as good based on what the listener feels while listening to it. The Beatles were pop music in 1962 and they were pop music in 1970 – it’s not a put down – I mean it as a compliment.

Well, I actually do think the first Oasis record is better than the first Beatles, Stones and Who records. The first Who record is pretty bad – they were never really an album band anyway – they peaked with their mid-60s singles. The Beatles got great on their third record, same with the Stones.

I agree the first Beatles record was revolutionary – but that doesn’t mean much AFTER the revolution does it? He didn’t say his record was more significant – he said “better”.

“Definitely Maybe” is in my personal top 15 of all time. Read what I wrote again – I didn’t just say the Beatles weren’t as good as Oasis, so don’t say I did.

I do think it’s all teenage music. I don’t think of it as high Art. To me pop music doesn’t mean “crap” it means music for the masses. It’s in the same group since it isn’t classical – it isn’t classified as good based on certain agreed upon criteria (like how well it’s played or sung) – it’s classified as good based on what the listener feels while listening to it. The Beatles were pop music in 1962 and they were pop music in 1970 – it’s not a put down – I mean it as a compliment.

Rollingstoned:

Noel wants to know if you want payment in money or jizz for your hurculean efforts here in trying to distract people from the fact that he’s a pompous, no-talent wanker with a giant mouth.

Oh, and for not pointing out that an Oasis greatest hits CD is *truly* a “pointless exercise”, while George Martin could fart into a megaphone and make better music than we could possibly imagine.

Most people who slag off Oasis can’t name one song other than wonderwall.

NOel may not have the greatest voice or be a brilliant guitarist, but he can write songs and liam has a voice to carry a tune with style.

You’re an idiot for saying he has no talent, since few dispute his amazing song writing abilities.

George Martin? OH god, just shut up. You can’t even compare Noel with Martin, not possible. They had totally different jobs.

I love how people harken back to the glory that was rome (60 and 70s rock) and shit on anything that comes out now or see it as less relevant.

Just because the beatles got the first crack at all the good chords does not make modern music any less relvent.

So LOVE is a “pointless exercise”, but an Oasis “Greatest Hits” CD isn’t?

I hadn’t thought of Oasis in TEN YEARS, and they still think they are relevent?

Oasis were a second rate Beatles imitation to start with.

Then they got worse.

I am amazed anyone outside of the UK gives a shit what Noel Gallagher says, considering he has proven again and again that he’s a pompous, egotistical asshole with shit for brains.

Oasis honks donkey dick.

I can hear a better Beatles imitation in any of a jillion bars, and I don’t have to resist the urge to kick the shit out of anyone.

Oasis has long gotten an undeserved bad rap in the US. People over here simply do not understand the impact they had on British culture in the 90’s. There isn’t a single American band I can think from the 90’s that would be put on the cover of a newspaper for something as inane as getting a haircut….that’s how big they were and still are today in the UK. As for the quote, in no way were the Gallaghers suggesting they were better than the Beatles. They just think that there’s no need for a remix record pawned off like it offers something new. Everyone here needs to get a grip and realize that Oasis is one of the best bands of the last 25 years…listen to the music objectively and without a chip on your shoulder and it’s pretty evident. As for Rollingstone, this article is yet another reason why I refuse to buy the magazine…complete and utter bullshit.

Noel, you little twerp:

Yer mum wants me to tell you to stop gumming up her Cosmo magazines.

Wanker.

Love, Dad.

Rollingstoned,

The Beatles were mostly a *rock* band *not* a “pop” band! THe Beach Boys with their mostly beach surfing sound was a pop band. Even the early Beatles music had a harder electric guitar sound than The Beach Boys and The Beatles are accurately categorized as a *rock* group in the rock sections of music stores and I have never heard The Beach Boys played on any classic rock stations only oldies stations but classic rock stations still play The Beatles.

To Bob The Rhino,

to even compare The Beatles a true great acclaimed rock band with brilliant singer song writers like John Lennon and Paul MCcartney is so beyond ridiculous and ludicrous! You obviously don’t know anything about The Beatles and their history as a true rock band! They bstarted playing as teenagers in clubs and then by the ages of 20,18 and 17 they started playing 8 hours a night in the sleazy strip clubs of Hamburg Germany taking speed pills to stay awake.They also played in the Cavern Club in Liverpol for several years beating all competitions in all of these clubs. They worked long and hard to get where they got. They loved rock music wrote tons of great songs and albums played their own instruments and played many very well. John Lennon always said he just really loves rock and roll and his ashes must really be turning to hear such nonsense comparing The Beatles to boy bands like N’SYNC and The Backstreet Boys which they never were and is the epitome of what especially John the founder and leader hated! And to the two Paul haters who claim to be Beatles fans,Paul is an extremely talented singer song writer and bass player and is rightfully regarded as such! He did plenty of good and great songs and albums before and during Wings up to 1975 which was his best sound period after The Beatles. I love The Wings albums Red Rose Speedway,Venus and Mars and Band On The Run is also very good which he not only wrote and produced but played almost all of the instruments along with just him and Denny Laine. And he played all of the instruments on his first solo album McCartney that came out in early 1970,and many of the instruments on Chaos and Creation in The Backyard.

I wanted to add that I found on different message boards and sites over 40 former ignorant Beatles haters who now say they are huge Beatles fans! They admit they hadn’t heard most of their music and had a lot of ignorant misperceptions about them. Most people don’t hate them to begin with they are still the most loved popular rock group ever with fans of all ages around the world and most people don’t go from hating a group to loving them and becoming huge fans! I just found another guy who posted on his blog in June saying that when he had thought The Beatles were overpraised he had started he became a big Who fan,he now says he did a 3880 turn and he says he now truly feels The Beatles were the greatest *rock* band ever!

Rollingstoned: You obviously are no expert on the music of the Beatles if you refer to the pop music they made as being one designed for teens. Basically you are being critical of anyone that lifts the music of the Beatles to an artistic level. Yet, all music critics of Pop and other rock genre happen to do just that. They marvel at their artistic abilities. The Beatles crossed over the bounds of Pop music and explored all possible progressions from their mop top days. Not one Beatle album sounds the same. Something that can not be said of Oasis. You also seem to get irritated when anyone alludes to the fact that in certain cases their music exists alongside classical forte. John Lennon listened to Beethoven religiously. Take the song “Because” for example. John stated that song was greatly influenced from a night of listening to Beethoven. Eleanor Rigby is another example of the Beatles progressing into classical overtones. Not exactly teen age music of sorts. Bytheway, even their re-worked songs from the new “Love” CD are far superior to anything Oasis ever accomplished. Take the song, ” Gnik Nus”. This is John’s composition, “Sun King”, mastered backwards. It is even more beautiful in this format, if that is even possible. How many artististically mature Oasis songs can accomplish this feat? Are you also aware that there are college classes that purely study the music created by the Beatles? They all profess the same beliefs. That as they matured their songs took on uncanny complexity. Changes in rythmn and song structure coexisting with difficult chord patterns and progressions. Yes, they were creative in their genius. Did I say genius again? They clearly chose to progress into the wide realm of mature abilities that surprised even the most hardened music critic. They were way beyond their young ages. Did you knoe that Paul McCartney was only 28 years old when they broke up? A complete body of highly acclaimed work under his belt at only 28? How old are the Gallagher Brothers? The “Love” CD is great. It only serves to remind everyone of the greatness that lies beneath those layers of unbelievable recordings. I repeat, the work of Oasis is nothing but a mere fragmented shadow of the music made by a band they could only hope to mimic. You definitely misinterpreted my statment.

fab4fan

Beatles were pop. They are a pop rock band. They’re songs are easy to play, simple to deconstruct in your head, have a straight foreward structure, and are catchy with quirky lyrics.

Pop is not bad. The best pop bands came out during the beatles time.

Oasis writes Pop music, Kurt Cobain wrote pop music (never denied it and admitted it in interviews).

As a rule of thumb, if you’re in the top 40 and sell #1 hit singles, you’re pop.

The beatles had like 30 hit singles over a course of 6 years or something ridiculous. They were a major break through pop rock band.

Hank

Listen to the frist 3 albums by the beatles, yes, it was designed for teenagers. This does not make it any less relevant or artsy.

People draw these conclusions – Pop=evil, teen music=crap, etc..

The beatles came to fame writing pop tracks for teenagers. This is not a bad thing. Rock and Roll was for teenagers.

I’m starting to wonder if you bothered to listen to the lyrics in their songs

Twist and shout, hold your hand, Please Please me, Love me do, That boy, etc..

“Oasis is nothing but a mere fragmented shadow of the music made by a band they could only hope to mimic. You definitely misinterpreted my statment.”

If you bothered to listen to Oasis, you’d notice their most immediate influence is not the beatles, but the Stone Roses.

Yes, Beatles inspired them, but who didn’t they inspire to some degree?

Oasis writes songs like the Roses. Determination, living on the Dole, confidence, confusion, being 21 and not really caring about much.

Beatles wrote love songs, predominately. Later on they started writing absract pieces and ventured into shit solo careers.

Content wise, Oasis sounds like the Stone Roses.

I meant to say they played for 2 years in a row in Hamburg Germany.Also there is an excellent site called The Evolution of Rock Bass Playing McCartney Style by Denis Alstrand and in it bass players Sting,Stanly Clarke,Will Lee and Billy Sheehan all say what a great melodic influential bass player Paul McCartney has always been. George Martin their talented classically trained producer is quoted as saying “There is no doubt that Lennon and McCartney were god musicians,they had good musical brains and the brain is where music orginiates,it has nothing to do with your fingers,he then said as it happens they could all play their instruments very well.The Rolling Stone Album Guide also calls Paul a remarkable bass player and he came out 1 and beat even John Entwistle of The Who and Bill Wynman of The Rolling Stones in the online Mister Poll of over 100 people and also came out # 1 on a Rate Your Music poll.Eric Clapton said when George was still living that George Harrison was a fantastic slide guitar player and he also said John Lennon was a very good rhythym guitar player and he played live with him in John’s The John Lennon Plastic Ono Band.

Jordan,

No Michael Jackson,The Carpenters,The Association,The Beach Boys,Englebert Humperdinck etc are true pop! So according to you The Rolling Stones should qualify as pop because they also had many top hits in the top 40 right? Also I assume you are talking about The early Beatles when you say they are simple to deconstruct and easy to play.Their middle and latter period was certainly more complex and innovative, but even songs like She Loves You and I Want To Hold Your Hand are not as simple as you think they are. There were many music critics who seriously analysed and studdied their music from the beginning. One of those music critics was William Mann of The London Times who found many clever subtleties in even these two songs. Music critic Richard Buckle in a review of a play called Mods and Rockers which John and Paul had composed the music for,in the December 1963 Sunday London Times said John and Paul were the greatest composers since Beethoven! That was really unusal for anyone to compare rock composers to Beethoven especially in 1963 but many have rightly have made this comparison since!

The truth is that Oasis isn’t a Beatles knockoff. We’re a Klaatu knockoff.

I`m dead

Im dead too

It was atleast better to see what seemed to be an entertaining show out of Beatles songs than hearing “Revolution” in a Nike commercial. Yeah, I wonder if the 7 year old makers of those sneakers in China heard that song.

I wish my ex-wife was dead

Regarding the whole “pop” vs. “Art” thing – make no mistake I preferred the Beatles before they so self consciously tried to create Art.

“A Hard Day’s Night” is pop, it’s teenage music and because it is what is and does it so brilliantly it transcends what it is and becomes Art…..even though I think they made other great albums that to me is their peak as a band.

That record is over 40 years old and smacks with an intensity I still can’t believe. Yeah, they got more mature and more overtly artistic, but they never really topped that one for me.

Oops,that’s me “rollingstoned” on the post below.

Cheers

It’s amazing what passes for music journalism these days.

Get some talent, chief and Rolling Stone, most corporate mouthpieces maintain the illusion of credibilty, it would seem you have discarded with this necessary pretention.

How the mighty have fallen.

This is something to get eveybody excited.

Oasis in their original (”Definitely Maybe”) lineup……playing “I Am The Walrus” live on TV in Dec ‘94.

The reason they picked the song is because “The Beatles never played it live” so as the best British band since the Beatles – they decided to fill the void.

If that kind of arrogance annoys you – Oasis isn’t the band for you.

If that kind of arrogance is the very definition of the Rock & Roll spirit to you – then well, you already know how important the Gallaghers were back in these glory days.

Enjoy.

http://www. youtube.com/watch?v=bfi7fFam32 U

I’m sorry, but the members of the Beatles–at least, the ones still alive–wipe their butts like everyone else. Yes, the Beatles produced some good pop songs and were a highly influential band; however, this does not mean that everything with the Beatles name on it is a work of “art.” With that said, the Gallagher brothers are boring sods with no discernible talent of their own. But who cares? Let pop eat itself. Bon Appétit!

’so as the best British band since the Beatles – they decided to fill the void’

!!!

The list of British bands that are massively superior to Oasis is extremely lengthy.

The Beatles made so many great *rock* songs and even the ones that were not great were still good!

Noel Gallagher didn’t critisise the Beatrles he critisised Love, produced after two of the group were dead. Anyway, he won’t care what Rolling Stone says as he is one of those very rare individuals, who really doesn’t care if he is liked or not. He is brutally honest and won’t care if you don’t like his answers. There are not many people like that. I really doubt if I’d like him or Liam either but they make awesome music and that’s all that matters.

“Beatles were pop. They are a pop rock band. They’re songs are easy to play, simple to deconstruct in your head, have a straight foreward structure, and are catchy with quirky lyrics.”

Okay folks, I’m getting sick of this.

I am a preofessional musician. Have been for 25 years now. I have played all sorts of styles and taught over 200 students. Saying that Beatles songs are easy to play and deconstruct is absurd.

I’m guessing, jordan, that you comment on playing the Beatles music and how simple it is is based on the fact that you are a musician as well. Answer this: How many time signature changes are there in “Happiness is a Warm Gun” and “Good Morning, Good Morning”? Now name all the time signatures. And yes, I know the Beatles probably couldn’t either, but that’s part of their genius.

Now, I’m not denying that they are pop music. Pop stands for “popular”. Well, it doesn’t get more popular than 1 billion albums in sales. However, the difference is that The Beatles wrote the book on modern rock music. They pioneered Direct Injection bass recording (commonplace today), close drum miking (again, common now), time signature and modulations in a pop context, releasing singles over 3 minutes long, concept albums, innovative album cover art, and orchestrated rock songs among many other things. They praticlly invented modern music. Four fucking English KIDS!! They broke up when the oldest Beatle was 30!! They were 20ish when they recorded “She Loves You”, with it’s tight “6 chord” harmony at the climax of the song.

Ringo was quoted claiming that the reason he so wanted to join them was because they were the best band around at the time. Have you even heard the Hamburg live recordings? There are at least 50 songs on it! Quite a varied and diverse setlist, I might add.

Oasis have done nothing but be another band that followed. What’s more, they are doing NOTHING new. Trust me. I have dicected a great deal of music in my day and learning Oasis songs for my students was not a big challenge.

I’m sorry, in my humble opinion, Beatles win, just like the article says.

So sorry. I didn’t know “pop” was a dirty word. I meant “rock” records that were popular. Oh, what was I thinking?

Oasis is second rate

This is the way I look at it. The Beatles accomplished a huge amount of stuff and creativity in only 7 years….OASIS had put out 4 studio lp’s in their first 7 years of recording…the beatles released 12 studio lp’s, and many non-lp singles….I do like OASIS….i’ve boughten all their lp’s over the years. You can’t compare the 2 bands-it’s like night and day.

What an asinine article. Typical RS BS about Oasis. “Stop the Clocks” is a great intro to one of the best bands to walk the planet. If RS had it’s facts correct, they would understand that it was Sony, NOT Noel, that forced the release of a Best Of record after Oasis’ contract was up.

Lazy journalism strikes again.

How much longer are we gunna put up with this “Beatles Table Scraps Campaigne” George Martin WAS a genious, but he’s an old fart along with McCartney and old Ringo trying to make a quick buck before that fat man with the red suit comes.. and it’sw not the first time.. How many times have we seen the Beatles come out with the same “New” old shit??

I love both bands to death, but the Beatles (rather what’s left) and Sir George need to lay off and enjoy the wealth they have and let the new bands take the bal and run!

Some might say, my chips are on Oasis!!

Oasis is garbage.

They sound like a “what if John Lennon had no talent and two digit IQ?” experiment.

And that they think they are Gods doesn’t help.

4 and 1/2 stars out of 5 for “Stop the Clocks” in the new All Music Guide review and a comments that it is comparbale to the Beatles Blue/Red compilations.

Indeed.

Stop The Clocks got 10 out of 10 by NME, The Times and several other respected papers (with journalists who don’t try and mis contrude the facts.) If you read the article Noel G never had a go at the Beatles, just this new non Beatles mash up record-it sounds awful to me too, but I quite like the Beatles.

screw the title “lords of rock”
The Beatles ARE “THE LORDS OF MUSIC”

they own it

Obviously The Beatles are better. But, two things:

1. Noel and Liam were commenting on the silliness of the new record, which was pretty on the mark in my opinion. It’s not The Beatles, it is (at best) a mediocre re-hash of them. They’re not trashing The Beatles, they’re trashing the record, which The Beatles technically didn’t even make.

2. Rollingstone has always been extremely biased in its reporting, and I usually don’t mind cause I agree with their more liberal standpoint. But this seems a bit too harsh, don’t you think? I think “Wonderwall” makes them worthy of comparison with Pete Best, don’t you? For God’s sake, why not try reporting on music itself, rather than mocking Oasis or The Killers or keeping running commentary on what Pete Doherty is doing? Is this a music mag (website) or a crappy tabloid?

The truth is that Oasis isn’t a Beatles knockoff. We’re a Knickerbockers knockoff.

I`m still dead .

I was stabbed in the chest by a crazed oasis fan . Now I`m dead .

Heh, and Rolling Stone still has the balls to call itself Rolling Stone?

They were right, stop crying. Oasis deserves a greatest hits CD, and this new Beatles thing is pretty much bullshit.

Please report on something useful, rather than turn into the Tabloid piece of shit you’ve become. As some one before me said: how do you have time to report on shit like this, the absolutely morally disgusting “Pete Dougherty Watch”, and pander to corporate tool “musicians” when you could be saving music by exposing us to stuff we havn’t seen and other mildly relevant things?

If I were alive, I’d give Noel regular beatings for being such a wanker.

I merely appear to be dead.

Who is Oasis?

… which explains how a second tier Knack knockoff like Oasis still has a career there.

Meanwhile, on the rest of Earth, LOVE holds both first and second spot.

It doesn’t “explain” anything….no more than it does that say Mariah Carey outsells Green Day in the US.

Nice try though.

They aren’t knocking the Beatles, dipshits, they’re knocking the album that the Beatles had nothing to do with creating besides supplying the 35+ year old records.

All they said was they didn’t like the album and then Rolling Stone, you have to write an article displaying your unholy hatred of Oasis, blowing it way out of proportion and making it seem like Oasis is insulting someone when they really aren’t. Sounds kinda like something that happened with the Beatles though now that I think of it.

PS: Oasis was the most successful British band of the 90’s and is still one of the country’s most popular bands up to this day. Comparing them to Pete Best is ridiculous. When Pete Best gets his 8th UK #1 single, or even one of the all-time, top 100 selling singles in any country in the world, then you can bash Oasis. Go back to fawning over Kate Moss and Pete Doherty, Rolling Stone. This is the same magazine that gets excited about a new Fall Out Boy record while fans of legitimate music just cringe.

rollingstoned:

I’d appreciate it if you would clip your nails before handling me tiny jewels again.

No go buy our record. Nobody else over there seems to want it.

There is no Oasis product in Amazon’s top 100 (updated hourly). The Beatles have several items in this list, including LOVE, which is hovering near the top.

Go figure.

Hmmmm……That may have something to do with “Stop the Clocks” not being out until Nov. 28th in the US.

Nice try again.

Who are you trying to convince? No one disputes The Beatles are the biggest band in the history of pop music.

But you apparently dispute that “Definitely Maybe” is a masterpiece. Which, quite frankly, makes you 3 fries short of a happy meal.

Here’s a test – do a Google seatrch on the “Best British Albums of All Time” – look for any poll done since “Definitely Maybe” was released. Then give us an update on how many of those polls place a Beatles album above it – think you might be surprised.

“It doesn’t “explain” anything….no more than it does that say Mariah Carey outsells Green Day in the US.

Nice try though.”

Nice try at what, exactly?

Apparently, your criteria for relevent information is that anything that doesn’t support whatever your position is is irrelevent.

Reading this thread, I see that you are a desperate dissembler with a lot of free time.

In fact, you appear to be irrationally obsessed with defending the loud mouthed pinheads in Oasis to the point where you are willing to make an idiot of yourself.

It’s simple: Oasis slagged LOVE because they want people to waste their money on their record instead. In the process, they insulted George Martin, whose snoring is likely more musical than anything they could dream up.

That’s it really.

You can gibber about how it’s pop not art and how everything but your opinion is irrelevent, but in the long run all we are left with is Oasis slagging George Martin because they want people to buy their record, which has nothing new to offer, while LOVE does.

“Here’s a test – do a Google seatrch on the “Best British Albums of All Time” – look for any poll done since “Definitely Maybe” was released. Then give us an update on how many of those polls place a Beatles album above it – think you might be surprised.”

Didn’t you say charts don’t mean anything?

Get a grip.

Nice try at trying to equate popularity with artistic success. Sorry if that was too tough for you to figure out?

I don’t mind if you disagree with me but don’t twist facts.

Westlife being number 1 in the UK means nothing – they are number 1 over the Beatles too , right?

Exactly. There that wasn’t so hard was it?

‘Hmmmm……That may have something to do with “Stop the Clocks” not being out until Nov. 28th in the US.

Nice try again.’

Nice try at what (again)?!!!!

Read my post, moron:

There is *no Oasis product* in Amazon’s top 100. There are *several* Beatles albums there, including LOVE, One, and Abbey Road.

Where is *any* Oasis product?

Answer: at your house, and in the remainder bin.

That’s right – charts don’t mean anything. But, when people constantly state that no one cares about Oasis and they consistently place above or near the Beatles in polls of critics and fans IN THE HOME COUNTRY OF BOTH BANDS, that should tell you something about the esteem those album are held in.

It doesn’t prove they are better than the Beatles – it proves that they’re a more important band than you and others give them credit for.

They matter – to millions of people.

Make sense? How’s your grip on that?

Who’s the moron? I read your post -you apprently didn’t read mine. No one, no one disputed the Beatles were the bigger band.

My point was that “Stop the Clocks” will be in the top 100 when it’s released.

How much simpler can i make it for you?

‘Nice try at trying to equate popularity with artistic success.’

Wasn’t it you doing that just now with your “read any poll, blah, etc” gibbering?

What, if anything, is your point?

Oasis insults Sir George Martin because they want to peddle their “Greates Hits” CD, people point out that they are complete wankers for doing so, and you go on a holy crusade to defend them.

In the process, you have made numerous contradictory assertions, insulted everyone who disagrees, dissembled frantically, and generally made an ass of yourself.

Will you be buying Stop the Clocks?

What? You alread own the 2 CDs it’s culled from?

Did they add anything new to it to make it interesting? No?

So why buy it?

Untrue – never insulted anyone until the man with the changing names called me a moron. Hi.

Untrue – never contradicted myself. Only raised the issue of the charts to point out it’s irrelevant. The I raised the issue of the charts/polls as a point to prove you can’t play both sides of the same argument. You can’t say Oasis are nothing when they are on those polls if you are using the polls/charts as “proof”.

It’s quite simple really.

True – Noel is right about “Love” and I’m a Beatles fanatic. It’s not bad, it’s interesting, but it’s not worth the purchase.

True – I have bought “Stop the Clocks” for a few reasons – the cover art (by the same guy who did Sgt. Pepper), and for the 4 later day tunes I don’t have. I think it’s a nice collection to have all in one place regardless of the fact that I have the 2 classic albums and the excellent B-sides/singles collection “Masterplan” which is represented by 4 songs on the new best of.

And there you have it.

If you look at RS editor picks on this homepage you can see it undermines its own credibility. J. Timberlake and Diddy featuring Christina Aguilera? Give me a fucking break. I always thought the Beatles were (are) to Rock n’ Roll what Plato was to Western philosophy. As Alfred White Northhead pointed out since Plato, everything else is a footnote. So Oasis is a footnote, but there a better band than most of the shit that has come out in the last 15 years. So they don’t like a mash up Beatles album. They have made it quite evident since they’ve been around how much they worship at the shrine of the Beatles. As far as them sounding like the Beatles, I don’t really see it that much. Tears for Fears sounds far more like the Beatles than Oasis ever did.

Just curious rollingstoned: When you Googled Top 100 Brit Albums Of All Time, how many Beatles vs. Oasis albums were there?

The weakness of the argument you present is that history will show that The Beatles will stand above Oasis in terms of sales, reviews, overall respect, etc. Will anyone write books about the technical aspects of Oasis’ music? Will any of the most respected musical minds of our time dicect Oasis’ music expressly for the purpose of using as an example of great music?

Frankly, I approached LOVE with caution as I felt it might be a great way of bastardizing and ruining important music. However, the fact remains that George Martin was largely responsible for what The Beatles were. He proceeded with this project with the blessing of the surviving THREE Beatles (yes, George Harrison was aware that it was going to happen…it was he who had originally discussed it with the “circus mogul” before his passing). So, in my mind, George is the only person who could do it with even a slight blessing of fans.

In fact, Jeff Lynne did a great job at the “reunion”, but Martin would have been much better.

Truth is that I wanted to hate LOVE. I really did. What did happen is that I was moved. Moved because, having been in a studio myself one or two THOUSAND times to record in my life, I can spot studio trickery a mile away. Oasis uses modern tricks in droves. However, LOVE just solidified my belief that The Beatles were supremely talented. You can hear for yourself that Martin did not use typical Pro Tools toys to “fix” the original performances. Why? Because the performances are spectacular. LOVE only reaffirmed that The Beatles were just an amazing band (far better than those snivelling fakes, Noel and Liam).

The Beatles will stand forever as one of the most important things that ever happened to music. The reason that they have been vaulted into god-like status is because they earned it. And yes, it IS disgusting when someone insults them, because in doing so they are insulting everything that has come since that they likely enjoy because the lads from Liverpool were pioneers.

It’s a fact.

“4 and 1/2 stars out of 5 for “Stop the Clocks” in the new All Music Guide review and a comments that it is comparbale to the Beatles Blue/Red compilations.”

And 22 albums by the Beatles (yes, 22!!) with 5/5 stars in Rolling Stones Album Review Guide. How many 5/5 for Beatle records in All Music Guide book. You carefully omitted that.

Funny how we can only report the facts we want know, but omit other ones.

Incidently, I’m not impressed that they compared Stop The Clocks to a Beatles compilation comprised of hit records. There is a great deal more to Beatles music than those records.

Shifty – I can’t dispute much of what you say, but I dispute some of it very much.

First, we disagree on “Love” – I don’t like it nearly as much as you and as I mentioned I’m a huge fan. But that’s cool, different strokes.

Second, I did not “omit” the facts about the Beatles reviews in AMG – I am quite aware of them, the point in mentioning the AMG “Stop The Clocks” review was simply to point out that others in the world take the band quite seriously – which was being disputed by posters here.

Third, I would never argue that Oasis as a better band compared with the Beatles whole body of work – however I could see how someone could. You know why? Because to a generation who grew up on Oasis, who lived and drank and danced to those songs – they ARE the Beatles of their generation. That may blasphemy to you, but to me it’s blasphemy to tell people their feelings are wrong.

And, I would quite passionately argue that “Definitely Maybe” as an album is quite comparable to any album ever made. By anyone – Beatles, Stones, Big Star, you name it. Among the greatest records of all time.

That is an achievement – it shouldn’t be dismissed as “oh well that’s only one album” or “oh who listens to them anyway”……I think it is quite fair to say that the first 2 Oasis records are among the best albums of the last 20 years and have been acclaimed as such, so, trust me on this, they won’t be forgotten.

Finally, I do not have a problem with anybody bad mouthing anybody. Oasis didn’t bad mouth the Beatles at all anyway, they bad mouthed this “Love” record.

I would have no problem if they or any other band said “F— The Beatles” or if a new band said “F— Oasis” anyway……I think Rock & Roll is meant to have it’s idols taken down……doesn’t mean I believe it or endorse it, I just understand it.

I am now dumber for having read that article.

You two girls are arguing over the wrong thing . The Smiths are the best band after The Beatles. In 5 years they put out some the strongest record since the Beatles . Oasis only have two really good cd`s the rest are just over blown coke made drivel. Oasis should have broken up after wonderwall . But no they just had to keep putting awful cd after awful cd .History has shown that the beatles are musically artislly the best . forever frozen in time and timeless.oasis only have cool haircuts nowadays . cool haircuts and wrinkled faces.

Funny how websites like doing these ‘lets have a go at oasis threads’. Isn’t it incredible at how much interest this band (oasis I mean) create??? this subject has been going on for a good few days.

Iv’e done a bit of a survey (any one else is welcome to see if thses figures add up)

Posts Supporting oasis/disagreeing with RS Article 61%
Posts Agreeing with Rolling Stone/Critisising oasis
39%

So oasis is winning and peole are tending to disagree with the article!

I disagree with RS, they have ALWAYS (Even when they were huge with Glory and Maybe) hated oasis. They are trying to stir up a fight between the beatles and oasis when there simply is not one.

Oasis – Stop The Clocks

Tonii-iiight, and forever, they are rock’n'roll stars
You all know what these songs sound like. Like tea and soggy biscuits, snaking dole queues, recreational drug abuse and rainy, wasted days, these are songs – not only born from all of the above – but microcosms of modern life: songs woven into the tapestry of British culture itself. Here’s a theory: if folk music is supposedly music of the people, but modern-day folk music generally consists of bearded, smelly plebs in Arran sweaters singing songs about fishing, then surely these songs are the embodiment of what contemporary British folk music really is? Songs for the terraces, for closing time, for parties – these are songs owned by the population of Britain. You can stop laughing now. NME can stop trying to cross the speeding motorway of theoretical bullshit. And we can all get on to the important stuff.

Theorising Oasis is like drinking butter – pointless and bad for the heart. How do you theorise the beat of a pulse, the strut of a peacock, the clang of a Les Paul? Just for a second though, bear with us. Yes, Oasis came to be at a time when rock music was on its knees (or splattered all over Kurt Cobain’s conservatory if you’d prefer a more visceral image), and yes, for a brief time in the mid-’90s they seemed to provide a soundtrack to colossal, cataclysmic social and cultural change. Yes, all of the above is true, yet, like the songs, you’ve heard that shit so many times before, it’s no exaggeration that this writer, upon typing those words on to the page, actually sighed. This is wrong. There is nothing about this record – and as a collection of singles, album tracks and B-sides culled predominantly from early era Oasis, we’re talking about a record dosed to the gills with rich pickings – that should ever induce the practice of sighing.

To understand these songs is to know what if feels like to be 18 years old, with a great haircut and a great set of clothes, walking into a club with more heart and hope than dough, and thinking – metaphorically at least – “Everyone in this shithole is going to suck my fucking dick.” These are songs about triumph and adversity (’Talk Tonight’); about having nothing and wanting everything (’Rock’N'Roll Star’); about being pissed off with the world, yet coming from such a poor lot, you’re too pathetically educated to be able to express such rage linguistically, and anyway, the cool-as-fuck, forever iconic, six-syllable stretched pronunciation of ‘Im-ag-in-aay-shee-en’ says everything you want to say much more succinctly (’Cigarettes & Alcohol’). It’s also about fighting – and, if you take into account Oasis’ much underappreciated, career best dewy side (’Slide Away’, ‘Wonderwall’, ‘Don’t Look Back In Anger’), forgiving. Put plainly and simply, these are songs about every intake of air that goes into your lungs, swills about inside you for a bit, and then returns from where it arrived. These are songs that chronicle the experience of life.

Let’s qualify that last statement: when Britpop ruled the roost and every half-arsed, talentless chancer (and Blur and Pulp) fancied themselves as a modern-day Alan Bennett – retelling tails of suburban strife via the eyes of detached sociological voyeurs – Oasis were singing songs of prize, choice-cut gobbledygook. No, these are songs about life in all its extremity, encompassing the minutiae of existence and the thrill of experience. Much like Liam wore Noel’s words like his own, these are songs for your life to wear. Consider ‘Champagne Supernova’ and its nonsensical refrain of “Slowly walking down the hall/Faster than a cannonball”. Now close your eyes. Remember where you were when you first heard it. Now try saying it means nothing. Repeat with the couplets of ‘Supersonic’, ‘Morning Glory’ and ‘Lyla’. Turn stereo to 11. Those songs say everything about life. They document it. They pulled you through it time and time again.

‘Stop The Clocks’ is a faultless record compiled by a band riddled with faults. After such early promise, Oasis never delivered beyond the stream of brilliant early album tracks and B-sides that marked their inception into the world. And while there’s an argument that says there could be another 20 great songs bolted on to this record (’Whatever’, ‘Cast No Shadow’, ‘Bring It On Down’), there’s not much worthy of inclusion that clocks in post-1996 within the scope of their discography. If anything, ‘Stop The Clocks’ serves as an unflattering mirror to Oasis circa 2006. A national treasure, forever amusing/inspiring interview copy, and an inconsistent creative force, yet a band – for all the Gallaghers’ bravado – at least 10 years past their peak. Where did it go wrong? Wah, that one’s for the theorists/marriage guidance councillors/drug dealers. This is an album of celebration – a toast to the band that embodied everything you ever believed rock’n'roll ever could be. And moreover, the band who embodied everything you ever believed life could be.

We’ll say it again: you all know what these songs sound like – but stop the clocks, take a look back, rejoice! Celebrate how they made you feel.

10 out of 10 NME
http://www.nme.com

Oasis

Stop the Clocks

The title gives it away, of course. The clocks have been stopped at 1996, the nation is waiting for new Labour to step in and abolish the Conservative Party for ever, the England football team are preparing to win the European Championship at home and Oasis are in their pomp.

That, at least, seems to be Noel Gallagher’s interpretation of his band’s history. Fourteen of the 18 songs on this selection date from the time when the planet’s biggest band (or so it seemed) was also the best, before cocaine and hubris dulled them. An awed if sarcastic friend nailed it back then, observing: “Football is almost as popular as Oasis these days.”

How five young men from a nondescript Manchester suburb became megastars remains a mystery. Britpop was little more than the application of marketing techniques to a previously marginal genre, but Oasis went beyond appealing to mere music fans. At their peak you could hear every tune from (What’s the Story) Morning Glory on any provincial pub crawl.

They were also the noisiest pop sensation (as opposed to a critical sensation) since T Rex and Slade. No wonder the much-loved Cigarettes and Alcohol borrowed Marc Bolan’s boogie so blatantly. Often Oasis improved on their inspirations. Morning Glory shared a guitar hook with R.E.M.’s The One I Love but it remains a sight more exciting.

Champagne Supernova, the apogee of Dadrock, was modelled on the Beatles’ While My Guitar Gently Weeps, but the solos of Gallagher and his guest Paul Weller were made for stadiums. Yet it took his mercurial brother Liam to turn Rock’n’Roll Star from statement of intent to plain fact. The pounding Acquiesce, their only shared vocal, is probably the best B-side since the Beatles.

One story has it that not only had Noel already penned the songs that sealed Oasis’s reputation before the band were signed, but that the sporadic highlights of their later, weaker albums, overlooked here, were leftovers from this original bounty. Certainly by the time success was a given, pastiches such as the Kinks copy The Importance of Being Idle and the comic-psyche- delic Go Let It Out were pleasing, and nothing more.

Despite their efforts, they never really resembled the Fabs, beyond Liam’s Lennon-esque rasp. Their style of an undisputed leader playing overlong guitar solos probably owed more to Neil Young and Crazy Horse, hugely influential in the early Nineties. Yet they were anthemic, not introspective, as raucous as the Sex Pistols but unafraid of sentimentality. If there really is anyone in Britain who doesn’t own the first two Oasis albums, this overpackaged Christmas present of guilt-free nostalgia will substitute.

Weirdly, the band that killed off indie music forever with their all-conquering success turned out to be its saviours. The generation that grew up playing these uncomplicated songs now dominates the charts. None of them has written a Live Forever yet but at least the guitar industry was saved. This snapshot of an unrepeatable era certainly entertains. Terry Venables is back on the England bench too, so maybe history really is repeating itself.

4 out of 5
The Times

This article only prooves what we have all known for 10 years . Rollingstone is prejudiced against oasis?

Why try and right off they most influential band of the last 10 years? They love teh Beatles??? I thought you were a music magazine who reports on music, not some FOX News like biased rag.

The problem with the Smiths is those vocals for me. Can’ stand Morrissey’s voice, so ……therefore I can’t stand the Smiths, since he won’t shut up.
Love everything else about the band though. Pop music is funny like that isn’t it?

I think to give Oasis grief for not being great after ‘96 is to miss the point. The point is they were extremely great, stunningly so in their early era …..heck even their B sides are classics from then.

You don’t judge the Rolling Stones by 30+ years of crappy albums and you don’t judge the Beatles by “Let it Be”, you judge them from their best work.

Also, about this “history has proven the Beatles artistically superior , frozen in time and timeless” stuff……

You know, life and Art doesn’t work out that way. History doesn’t often prove anything , it just obscures things. Often in the case of the Beatles it obscures people from seeing them as an actual (great) band and raises them to some ridiculous God-like status.

I’d rather my bands be made of real flesh and blood with all the failures and frailties that go along with it.

If Oasis had broken up after “Wonderwall” sure, their catalogue would have been perfect, but……I am not so arrogant as to believe musicians should stop living their lives and making music just because I want them “to be perfect”.

It’s like people who say Michael Jordan should have never come back because they wanted to keep my memory of him at his best. I never understood that thinking.

I will never forget the thrill of those early Oasis records no matter what the band release these days. (And for the record, I do like some of the post “Morning Glory” work – there are always a couple great tracks per album – last album was quite solid).

Okay, so Noel feels that Oasis’ first record was better than the Beatles’ first. The Beatles first record was recorded in one day at a cost of $500, yet it still manages to get rave reviews to this day and has been considered a breakthrough record in the history of ALL music.

Come on rollingstoned, be honest…does it not make you the least bit angry that the Gallaghers compare themselves to the Beatles? Don’t you see that as being a bit stupid? Sure, it’s cool when a rock and roller beaks off about how great they are (hell, Pete Townsend made a career out of it…despite the fact that Townsend is considerably more brilliant than Noel), but you can carry it too far.

although post whats the story albums (not including their fine last effort ‘dont believe the truth’) have been patchy to say the least, oasis are probably still the biggest rock band in the uk (out selling coldplay gigwise and u2/radiohead album wise [this weeks charts]). This is entirely because of their 94-96 work meaning that stop the clocks is a must buy for anyone wanting to know about british music and culture in the 90s: a golden period for british music (see radiohead/blur/massive attack) and one probably only bettered by the 60s.

beatles: undisputed greatest group ever.
oasis: along with nirvana/radiohead they defined the 90s. no one will ever challenge the beatles but oasis are one of very few who are up there. their influence on british is starting to come through (kasabian/arctic monkeys/razorlight), something that in 25 years, will start of similar beatles/oasis esq debates. their place in rock n roll history is assured.

read the nme oasis ’stop the clocks’review:
http://www.nme .com/reviews/oasis/8077
10/10
says it all

Shifty – In all honesty it does not bother me if/when Noel or Liam compare themselves to the Beatles, though I do know what you’re saying and how others could feel differentlu.

I really make an effort to judge bands solely on the basis of their music (albums usually rather than live shows).

Actually, the Who is a great example :

Now I see them as a band I would classify as a great singles band. I love their early exciting singles (most of what you find on “Meaty, Beaty…”) but their actual albums always get bogged down by concepts and bombastic pretension for me overall.

I recognize they are legends and pioneers and perhaps the greatest live band of all time…..but I set all that aside and try simply to assess what is on the records when listening to those.

That’s somewhat similar to Oasis for me in the sense that, I realize they like to give quotes to the press, most of which are outrageous and most of which are quite funny, but…..that never impacts how I assess “Definitely Maybe”.

“”So according to you The Rolling Stones should qualify as pop because they also had many top hits in the top 40 right? Also I assume you are talking about The early Beatles when you say they are simple to deconstruct and easy to play.”"”

Yes, the rollingstones are a pop band. They’re very very popular and charge 200 dollars a shot for tickets, in my town. They have a slew of albums with a ton of hits. They write catchy tunes with straight-foreward song structure.

Yes, I’m talking about the early beatles. If you want to find similarity in songs then shakermaker and Champaigne Supernova are the two later-era beatles hommage tracks.

But even if Noel Claimed undying allegiance to beatles and pinned the bands main inspiration on them, it would still be bullocks because they sound EXACTLY like the Stone Roses in terms of delivery and content.

Lots of bands claim inspiration to the greats when truely they ripped off some smaller act, they wax pretenious about how all these legends made them want to play. But when you find that small band that came before them that sound just like them, then you start to wonder.

Claiming the beatles inspired you is a safe shot for most bands. Even Kurt Cobain said he was a beatle maniac.

Oasis are British and are huge, so the comparisson will be made. But if you really line up the two bands they have not too much in common save one or two songs.

Oasis made a comparrison based on popularity. They have admitted that the fame of the beatles can probably never be acheived again. It was a different world back in the 60s. It was the media that made the first move and said “bigger than the beatles?” Bigger in terms of sales and sell out tours. But not impact on the industry.

But ya, Oasis pilfered Stone Roses, but it’s ok cause they admitted it and are very frank about it. It’s only a crime when you don’t.

Whoever wrote this article is a tosser…a pure Yank tosser who obviously understands nothing of the power of Oasis. You hide behind your indie bands and call the Beatles, and oh let me guess, The Clash the GODS OF ROCK. You’re a wanker…of course the Beatles are the Beatles you knob, but Oasis’ spirit has always been about being bigger than and better than indie snob snivvling brats like you would have anyone think. Keep writing for a washed up and useless publication, it suits your intelligence.

HAHAHAHAHA OASIS RULE AHEEEEEEEE

OASIS!OASIS!!!!!!! !!!!

MAD4IT !

dear bob (can i call you bob? because mr-too-chicken-to-put-my- name- on-my-own-piece-so-i-have-to-h ide-behind-the-entire-editoria l-staff-which-includes-people- who-don’t-agree-with-the-mindl ess-drivel-that-i-write just takes too long to type),

last i checked, bob, you haven’t put any music out. at all. so by your logic you are in no position to critique anyone’s music. get back to us when you’ve actually sold a record.

Ed,

Do you know how I know you’re gay?

- You like Radiohead.

“”last i checked, bob, you haven’t put any music out. at all. so by your logic you are in no position to critique anyone’s music. get back to us when you’ve actually sold a record.”"

I don’t know who bob is, but you’re an idiot for claiming non-artists have no right to critique the work of others.

That statement is total rubbish by every standard and I’m not even going to comment any further on it.

See, this type of over-reacting to a funny Oasis comment is exactly what makes RS seem so tight assed and behind the times.

Most American publications have jumped off the Oasis-bashing bandwagon for a reason.

You guys are defending a cirque de soleil beatles album!!

How UNrock and roll is that!

Get a life and jump off the bandwagon now… the longer you wait the more stupid you’ll look.

http://www.geocities.com/oas isenlightenment

“I don’t know who bob is, but you’re an idiot for claiming non-artists have no right to critique the work of others.

That statement is total rubbish by every standard and I’m not even going to comment any further on it.”

if there’s one thing to be learned from all this, it’s to READ the post before running your mouth off.

“bob”, if you remember (which you apparently don’t), is the name i gave to the guy who wrote the piece. bob claimed that oasis shouldn’t have slagged the love album because their own album was crap. i just took his reasoning one step further, and said that a crap album was better than no album.

btw, i don’t think stop the clocks is crap. it’s not great, but it’s not crap.

Good God! If only you people could care about something that really mattered…

Riiiiight……Perhaps we could discuss the situation in Iraq here or put our heads together to solve world hunger…..why are you reading the music message boards then?

Shouldn’t you be off contemplating the relationship between economics and moral responsibility?

Good. Off you go then …….

The truth is that Oasis isn’t a Beatles knockoff. We’re a Stone Roses knockoff.

“”last i checked, bob, you haven’t put any music out. at all. so by your logic you are in no position to critique anyone’s music. get back to us when you’ve actually sold a record”"

The statement is pretty explicit.
Don’t try back pedal now.

Rollingstoned, I don’t need you questioning what I read. I’m glad you care, though.

As for world hunger–well, I think we should put the two surviving Beatles in a pot and whip up a nice stew. After all, they’re not doing much of anything these days. I would feed the Gallagher brothers to the hungry, but I’m afraid les frères terribles might cause indigestion.

Finally…oh, never mind! I could go on forever. Have a nice day. I’m off to read some more music boards. Ah, the life of a bon vivant!

“”last i checked, bob, you haven’t put any music out. at all. so by your logic you are in no position to critique anyone’s music. get back to us when you’ve actually sold a record.”

The statement is pretty explicit.
Don’t try back pedal now.”

i ain’t backpedaling crap. if you read it carefully, i use the phrase “by your logic.” granted, i’m using my logic to extend bob’s logic, but it was his to begin with.

Oasis is funny. They think they are so special competing head to head on record sales and possibly out selling their hero’s The Beatles.

Oasis has struggled to beat a remixed soundtrack album while pretending it’s the real Beatles. Bragging about competing for the number 1 spot against a band who hasn’t been together in over 30 years, half the members are dead, and all the released songs on this “Love” album are rehashed remixes (by an 80 year old producer) of the old songs everyone already owns, or are holding off to rebuy digital via Apple’s iTunes in the near future.

Considering the above info, it’s still quite amazing The Beatles and George Martin are STILL kicking musical ass, and giving the new bands a run for their money in the charts!

If The Beatles were all alive, at their best, and in the same youth as you, Oasis, you couldn’t even brush The Beatles royal coat tails on any chart.

Buy a clue Oasis! You’re creating your own fantasy of competing with The Beatles, when actually you’re just shadowboxing with the mere remnants of Gods.

Rolling Stone is a baby boomer mag. Look at all of their ‘greatest’ songs and albums issues…they overtly favor boomer stuff. Questioning a highly regarded boomer band is thus risky; it is pretty much taken as a personal assault or as an assault on their generation. Oasis missed that, I guess. Along these lines, if anyone questions Dylan, he or she will be verbally destroyed. Boomers are an odd lot, willfully ignorant to the fact that they didn’t invent popular culture. But they sure are good at following the winds of money…which is what Dylan has mastered with his Victoria Secret ads. And boomers are good at swimming in the currents generated by the benefits of the New Deal while seeing to it that future generations lose. “I hope I die before I get old” ha ha ha! Smash your instruments, rich boys.