Stone Roses > oasis

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

→ Log in 🔑 Register
Status
Not open for further replies.
Oasis' music sounds like utterly lumpen, derivative pub rock next to The Stone Roses '88-'90 output. They weren't coming from the same place, musically, at all.

Both only made one decent LP before cocaine hubris took hold of the principal songwriter in each band. It just happens that The Stone Roses is one of my favourite records. I like Definitely Maybe, it sounds raw and hungry, but after that, nah, not for me. At least there are a few interesting ideas on The Second Coming.

I've met both, and Oasis were the sounder lads though, I gotta say.
 
Blue 1 said:
Oasis' music sounds like utterly lumpen, derivative pub rock next to The Stone Roses '88-'90 output. They weren't coming from the same place, musically, at all.

Both only made one decent LP before cocaine hubris took hold of the principal songwriter in each band. It just happens that The Stone Roses is one of my favourite records. I like Definitely Maybe, it sounds raw and hungry, but after that, nah, not for me. At least there are a few interesting ideas on The Second Coming.

I've met both, and Oasis were the sounder lads though, I gotta say.
Click to expand...
I'm an unashamed fan of Oasis, for nostalgic reasons as sort of the band of my teenage years. Definitely Maybe is the only stuff I would still listen to these days.
 
The real answer is The Verve.

Just a shame Ashcroft has gone cosmic.

(And doesn't speak to Simon Jones or Nick McCabe, either).
 
Last edited:
I love Oasis. First really got into them when I was about 15 - a year after they'd broke up. But growing up in England in the early 2000s it's not like you couldn't know who Oasis were.

That's the thing about them. Whatever people think of it - and most of those opinions that they're 'pub rock' or derivative are actually just stereotypical, derivative opinions from people who have never really scratched the surface - they transcended music and became part of the culture. Not many bands or artists achieve that, certainly none from the last 15/20 years.

Not sure how anybody can listen to The Masterplan and suggest it's 'derivative', or Let's All Make Believe, or not be absolutely buzzing when they listen to Round Are Way. Those are three B-Sides (remember them)?

Oasis wore their influences on their sleeve and pulled it off. They had the quality to back up their arrogance. And whatever you think of their music, people got up (and still probably do) in the morning and lived for that band. That's mental. They're still the biggest guitar band in Britain, and they split up 12 years ago.

With the Roses, I love them too. Love what they did and the music they made. Don't have to categorise them as better or worse really. One couldn't have happened without the other but the Roses couldn't have happened without the Mondays and then that goes back to Chicago and the birth of acid house, and the birth of acid house goes back to the 60s etc etc

So it does kind of grate when I see someone say 'derivative' or 'pub rock'. Not sure Talk Tonight is a pub rock song, or Waterfall is derivative. Everyone likes what they like and that's fine.

Edit: Also, getting into Oasis and then the music that that subsequently got me into, led to me picking up a guitar and teaching myself how to play it. I never had the confidence to have lessons when I was younger and it's taken 3-4 years to even get remotely half-decent, but it's got me through some tough times (and got me a few shags, so, cheers lads)
 
Last edited:
Blue 1 said:
Oasis' music sounds like utterly lumpen, derivative pub rock next to The Stone Roses '88-'90 output. They weren't coming from the same place, musically, at all.

Both only made one decent LP before cocaine hubris took hold of the principal songwriter in each band. It just happens that The Stone Roses is one of my favourite records. I like Definitely Maybe, it sounds raw and hungry, but after that, nah, not for me. At least there are a few interesting ideas on The Second Coming.
Click to expand...

struth...
 
BlueToff said:
I love Oasis. First really got into them when I was about 15 - a year after they'd broke up. But growing up in England in the early 2000s it's not like you couldn't know who Oasis were.

That's the thing about them. Whatever people think of it - and most of those opinions that they're 'pub rock' or derivative are actually just stereotypical, derivative opinions from people who have never really scratched the surface - they transcended music and became part of the culture. Not many bands or artists achieve that, certainly none from the last 15/20 years.

Not sure how anybody can listen to The Masterplan and suggest it's 'derivative', or Let's All Make Believe, or not be absolutely buzzing when they listen to Round Are Way. Those are three B-Sides (remember them)?

Oasis wore their influences on their sleeve and pulled it off. They had the quality to back up their arrogance. And whatever you think of their music, people got up (and still probably do) in the morning and lived for that band. That's mental. They're still the biggest guitar band in Britain, and they split up 12 years ago.

With the Roses, I love them too. Love what they did and the music they made. Don't have to categorise them as better or worse really. One couldn't have happened without the other but the Roses couldn't have happened without the Mondays and then that goes back to Chicago and the birth of acid house, and the birth of acid house goes back to the 60s etc etc

So it does kind of grate when I see someone say 'derivative' or 'pub rock'. Not sure Talk Tonight is a pub rock song, or Waterfall is derivative. Everyone likes what they like and that's fine.

Edit: Also, getting into Oasis and then the music that that subsequently got me into, led to me picking up a guitar and teaching myself how to play it. I never had the confidence to have lessons when I was younger and it's taken 3-4 years to even get remotely half-decent, but it's got me through some tough times (and got me a few shags, so, cheers lads)
Click to expand...
OK, I'll give you "The Masterplan". And "Acquiesce", too. Both quality songs if I'm being entirely fair. "Round Are Way" sounded like a Slade cast-off, which I think was intentional, given the spelling of the title. Didn't do it for me, but I remember it. They did also write "She's Electric", and "Champagne Supernova" around the same time though, which are both rancid, to my ears.

Thing is, I have more than scratched the surface. I saw them touring "Supersonic", in front of 200 people. My best mate back then loved them and bought everything they put out, and played it to me, lots. I can remember him playing me "Don't Look Back in Anger" before the LP came out, that he'd taped off the radio, and I thought they were taking the piss. I'm not coming from a place of ignorance of their music.

Sure, they transcended music and became part of popular culture. Which meant Noel sucking up to Tony Blair, and the sort of people you went to certain pubs and clubs to avoid turning up there in their duffle coats, shouting and starting fights. Ace. By the time of Knebworth they'd become our generations Phil Collins and Paul McCartney club for me and who wants to see that? Lots of people I suppose, but not me.

Sorry dude, they're obviously one of your favourite bands, music is entirely personal so fair enough. I just find most of their stuff a bit plodding. I wouldn't dance to it and it does nothing for my brain, both of which The Stone Roses do. There's funk and psychedelia in the Roses' stuff.
 
Blue 1 said:
OK, I'll give you "The Masterplan". And "Acquiesce", too. Both quality songs if I'm being entirely fair. "Round Are Way" sounded like a Slade cast-off, which I think was intentional, given the spelling of the title. Didn't do it for me, but I remember it. They did also write "She's Electric", and "Champagne Supernova" around the same time though, which are both rancid, to my ears.

Thing is, I have more than scratched the surface. I saw them touring "Supersonic", in front of 200 people. My best mate back then loved them and bought everything they put out, and played it to me, lots. I can remember him playing me "Don't Look Back in Anger" before the LP came out, that he'd taped off the radio, and I thought they were taking the piss. I'm not coming from a place of ignorance of their music.

Sure, they transcended music and became part of popular culture. Which meant Noel sucking up to Tony Blair, and the sort of people you went to certain pubs and clubs to avoid turning up there in their duffle coats, shouting and starting fights. Ace. By the time of Knebworth they'd become our generations Phil Collins and Paul McCartney club for me and who wants to see that? Lots of people I suppose, but not me.

Sorry dude, they're obviously one of your favourite bands, music is entirely personal so fair enough. I just find most of their stuff a bit plodding. I wouldn't dance to it and it does nothing for my brain, both of which The Stone Roses do. There's funk and psychedelia in the Roses' stuff.
Click to expand...

I love both bands mate and respect your opinion. Disagree with it but music to me is so personal so I can't abide some people slagging one thing off categorically if you get me? Different music means different stuff to different people. ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top