Oasis: great band that underperformed, or terrible band that managed to stumble bass ackawards into one masterpiece?

Didn't one of those dumb@ss brothers say they were bigger than the Beatles?

album critic wrote:

I'm still trying to decide this decades later. What's the Story (Morning Glory) is legitimately a great album, but the rest of this band's resume makes them out to be the British Nickelback. So were these guys a great band that just didn't quite find their groove with any kind of consistency, or were they an awful band that just kind of stumbled into one great album?

They had two very good albums. What's the Story... and Definitely Maybe. I think Drugs and attitude did them in. While the albums were good, let's not overrate them. They are not all-time great Albums - not the type you go back to time and time again over the years. The albums were good, but of their time and not all that enduring. Blur and Radiohead (I understand some hate Radiohead) were far better and far more enduring. Paul Weller is far better, and I'm sure I can come up with a dozen other better UK bands from that general time period which stand the test of time better.

Of course, it could be that I underrate them because they were such a*holes. Still, after those 2 albums, the rest are not very good.

Never understood why Oasis ever had a single hit. Totally derivative music. Low energy vocals and lazy backup tracks.

They were definitely a limited band talent wise. In all seriousness the Gallagher brothers weren't really that talented musically (vocally, writing or playing) and I think were more excited about how they almost randomly and unpredictably became rock stars, the allure of dating (and marrying) hot but insane and rubbish women, and doing drugs then they ever were in evolving and developing their craft.

They fall into the category that a number of bands have over time - right place, right time, right look and sound for the time and place. No real science behind it and it happens (another example - The Strokes). For every Oasis there are bands of similar fundamental makeup and ability that we simply never hear of. But hey, fair play to them - they capitalized on it and made a lot of money off one sound and like 3 songs. Still to this day they are amusingly a go-to band of British chavs and football hooligans.

To answer your question - more luck than ability.

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot wrote:

I'd take Queen over Oasis.

Yeah?.....

I have to admit this made my momentarily laugh out loud but I suspect that was your intention.

What, you'd take one of the top 5 greatest bands in the history of music, led by the most gifted singer, songwriter, musician of all time in Bulsara (Freddy M) over some 3 hit wonder band led by two dysfunctional moron brothers with stupid hair and cr@p voices?

Again, made me laugh. Well done.

undeniably the best example of a group that sounded better live

25:22

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smarPHpYB3U

Agree with OP. What's The Story is a great album, but not much to go on after (or before)

It reminds me of Guns n Roses

Appetite for Destruction is an ALL-TIMER. One of the greatest, if not the GREATEST hard rock album EVER.

But GNR Lies - 4 covers, one acoustic re-do, and three solid originals (although One in a Million has some lyrical issues)

Use Your Illusion I & II are a mess. 30 songs of which 4 are memorable - November Rain, You Could Be Mine, Don't Cry, and Civil War

Did not mean to hijack this Oasis thread. Just drawing a comparison

Although I’m surprised more people haven’t backed up oasis in this thread, I can understand why you might not like them. Maybe they were over hyped and more popular than they deserved. But also, their popularity made them a great introductory band for other UK alternative bands from that today’s listeners might not have otherwise Heard of; some were mentioned before. Blur, the Stone Roses, the Verve, maybe even add in Belle and Sebastian on the fringes; shoegaze bands like the Jesus and Mary chain and Catherine Wheel. Love em or hate em, super popular artists are the gateway for people to discover lesser known bands

This, Elton John's catalogue has and will far better stand the test of time.

Salvitore Stitchmo wrote:

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot wrote:

I'd take Queen over Oasis.

Yeah?.....

I have to admit this made my momentarily laugh out loud but I suspect that was your intention.

What, you'd take one of the top 5 greatest bands in the history of music, led by the most gifted singer, songwriter, musician of all time in Bulsara (Freddy M) over some 3 hit wonder band led by two dysfunctional moron brothers with stupid hair and cr@p voices?

Again, made me laugh. Well done.

Or Elton John, as I just mentioned. It was a means of comparison to show what a true artistic genius in music contributed to the canon (regardless of great albums) through the perspective of hindsight. We're decades past Queen's peak yet we still mention them in hushed voices. We're not going to do that with Oasis in a decade or more. Hell, to delve down into it, I'd put Jeff Buckley's "Hallelujah" (yes, a Leonard Cohen cover) over "Wonderwall" as impactful song performance from that era.

album critic wrote:

I'm still trying to decide this decades later. What's the Story (Morning Glory) is legitimately a great album, but the rest of this band's resume makes them out to be the British Nickelback. So were these guys a great band that just didn't quite find their groove with any kind of consistency, or were they an awful band that just kind of stumbled into one great album?

Their first album Definitely Maybe was a huge hit in Europe and a smaller hit in the US even though a lot of us remember What’s the Story as their breakthrough. The prevailing thought seems to be that they floundered after those first two and were always trying to duplicate the success of their debut. I don’t think they’re the most talented band and obviously they had some issues but Noel has a huge gift for writing catchy melodies. I suppose they “stumbled” into an opportunity in the right era but you could say that about any successful act. And in the end really comes down to what you enjoy. I actually like most of their catalogue and a lot of Noel’s subsequent solo material.

track chick wrote:

Blur was better

Haha, glad someone mentioned Blur. A lot of people may not know that Blur was actually considered a direct competitor or Oasis during the “Britpop” craze of the 90s. So if you want to compare them to their close contemporaries Oasis stood the test of time pretty well.

acquiesce wrote:

Wonderwall is catchy but you should listen to Live Forever, Supersonic, Acquiesce, Some might say, Don't look back in anger or even Hindu Times.

Agree with this. Also, Whatever is probably my favorite song of their's . Up in the Sky is pretty tight too.

Oasis is one of those bands that you either love or hate. Also, they had a very small window of competent song writing, as many have said previously. The drugs, booze, women and tabloid vitriol took it's toll on them and now they just barely manage to stay relevant by calling each other potatoes.

Saying Blur is better than Oasis is the standard lazy, music snob response. Saying Oasis lacked talent and their songs were too simple is similar to what critics say about Nirvana. Fact is, simple is hard. The less you see in music often hides that more work and talent that was required to get there. Just because their influences are obvious to the masses doesn’t mean they were any more derivative than those that came before them.

What did them in was their third album, which a music critic described as "cocaine, set to music"

Precious Roy wrote:

Never understood why Oasis ever had a single hit. Totally derivative music. Low energy vocals and lazy backup tracks.

Oasis is GARBAGE. Their one popular song, Wonderwall, makes my ears bleed. Anyone who likes them has brain damage.

album critic wrote:

I'm still trying to decide this decades later. What's the Story (Morning Glory) is legitimately a great album, but the rest of this band's resume makes them out to be the British Nickelback. So were these guys a great band that just didn't quite find their groove with any kind of consistency, or were they an awful band that just kind of stumbled into one great album?

It is a great album. They were able to catch a particular sound with that overloaded production they did, that none of the other hard rockers of the times were able to. It resonated. Didn't last long though, everything since has been redundant and derivative, without the inspiration. They probably have the talent to do it again, but unlikely to ever sit down and do it. Lead singer = massive wanker.

Salvitore Stitchmo wrote:

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot wrote:

I'd take Queen over Oasis.

Yeah?.....

I have to admit this made my momentarily laugh out loud but I suspect that was your intention.

What, you'd take one of the top 5 greatest bands in the history of music, led by the most gifted singer, songwriter, musician of all time in Bulsara (Freddy M) over some 3 hit wonder band led by two dysfunctional moron brothers with stupid hair and cr@p voices?

Again, made me laugh. Well done.

I'd take the Rolling Stones over Oasis

team Unruly Bush wrote:

Didn't one of those dumb@ss brothers say they were bigger than the Beatles?

That was pretty much the nail in the coffin for Oasis.....