Music Oasis or The Stone Roses - Which was better?

Eckers99 said:
You've obviously never heard Turns Into Stone.

Or the many highlights from Second Coming.

The first 90 seconds of 'Elephant Stone' are better than the whole Oasis back catalogue.

Click to expand...


I've heard pretty much everything the Roses have done. In fairness I did forget about a lot of the songs on the anniversary version which I love like What The World Is Waiting for and Something's Burning.

The intro to Elephant Stone is just them ripping themselves off with riffs and licks they'd used in previous songs. Was half expecting them to break into Sally Cinnamon for a minute there.
 
Pink Moon said:
Oasis' catalogue of hits actually spans across multiple albums though. They can release a greatest hits compilation, for example. The Roses would just re-release their debut album. I mean just by virtue of releasing Definitely Maybe, Morning Glory and The Masterplan they top the Roses in terms of overall catalogue, IMO.

I don't have much love for Oasis past Be Here Now but if you accept them for what they were then at least they were still fairly successful well into the 2000's.
Click to expand...
A Roses best of would include many songs not on the first album including One Love, Fool's Good, Elephant Stone, Love Spreads, 10 Storey Love Song, Beggin' You, Tightrope, Sally Cinamon etc, etc

I'd match their two good albums and eps against Oasis' first two albums and their B sides comp.

Roses are meaningfully active (first time) from around 87 to 95 which I'd argue is longer than Oasis' peak.
 
I liked Oasis until me dad said he thought they had a few good tunes. Put me right off as a rebellious twenty-something.
Out of the two I only still listen to the Roses
 
Oasis was the soundtrack to my youth. Stone Roses are great but I dont remember them being anywhere near as popular back then.
 
Roses, for me

Oasis are a cracking band though, I hope they reform soon
 
Eckers99 said:
You've obviously never heard Turns Into Stone.

Or the many highlights from Second Coming.

The first 90 seconds of 'Elephant Stone' are better than the whole Oasis back catalogue.

Click to expand...


That's a good track actually. Might listen to all of it later. The first 90 seconds are very good too, reminded me of New Order and House Martins for some reason.

But it isn't a scratch on any of the memorable stuff from Oasis. Throwing tags like 'pop song' is what a hipster would say. I know you didn't but others have.
 
Pink Moon said:
Oasis' catalogue of hits actually spans across multiple albums though. They can release a greatest hits compilation, for example. The Roses would just re-release their debut album. I mean just by virtue of releasing Definitely Maybe, Morning Glory and The Masterplan they top the Roses in terms of overall catalogue, IMO.

I don't have much love for Oasis past Be Here Now but if you accept them for what they were then at least they were still fairly successful well into the 2000's.
Click to expand...
Good post.
 
Dumbstar said:
That's a good track actually. Might listen to all of it later. The first 90 seconds are very good too, reminded me of New Order and House Martins for some reason.

But it isn't a scratch on any of the memorable stuff from Oasis. Throwing tags like 'pop song' is what a hipster would say. I know you didn't but others have.
Click to expand...
The Roses are pretty poppy. They weren't exactly knocking out obscure electro epics.

They're not as famous, they were never as omnipresent and I can understand why someone may prefer Oasis but to suggest the Roses are some sort of obscure hipster band (which, given the utter ubiquity of Oasis, virtually all bands are relatively obscure in comparison) or that they only have one album of any note is confusing.

The Roses are also hugely anthemic. The song Utd run out to as an example.

If the question were Oasis or New Fast Automatic Daffodils then terms like hipster may be banded about (unjustifiably in my opinion - liking something obscure is not always vanity) and clearly Oasis would win by a mile.
 
The Madchester/Rave party was already long finished by the time Oasis actually arrived on the scene - so its a bit hard for me to compare them to any of those bands.

Oasis were late to the Madchester party, so (imo) its hard to compare them to bands like the Roses or Happy Mondays or the like. Far too poppy to as well. Blur would be a better comparison.
 
Raoul said:
The Madchester/Rave party was already long finished by the time Oasis actually arrived on the scene - so its a bit hard for me to compare them to any of those bands.

Oasis were late to the Madchester party, so (imo) its hard to compare them to bands like the Roses or Happy Mondays or the like. Far too poppy to as well. Blur would be a better comparison.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, I'm just getting familiar with both bands now if I'm honest (apart from the usual main songs).
 


Some great footage of The Roses just jamming here. Aside from writing great songs, you can see how good they are as musicians, especially Reni, who is a phenomenal drummer.
 
Loved them both. I actually listened to Oasis before Stone Roses as I was too young in the late 80s to be there for the Roses
breakthrough.

Once I got into the Roses I was hooked though. Always loved their debut and also the Complete Stone Roses ep they released. The amount of good songs they had between 1988 and 1991 was impressive.

On the other hand I was big into Oasis from basically the get go. Oasis also had a multitude of great B sides between 1994 and 1997.

Oasis are probably more important in my musical life but Roses are better band technically. Love them both though.
 
Both were massive in my life. I taught myself to play bass guitar using stone roses so spent hours and hours with their first album. Such a wicked album.

Oasis though, just massive, and it wasn’t just the music. Being 18 - 20’s in that mid 90’s was a brilliant thing and Oasis and their first two albums captured that feeling and bottled it.

So in answer to the OP I’d have to say Oasis simply because their first two albums soundtracked some of my most treasured times and memories, and they soundtracked them bloody loudly too.
 
Noel Gallagher roadied for Inspiral Carpets. However, Oasis were heavily influenced by Mersey beat music rather than the Manchester scene. The Gallagher brothers are an embarrassing pair of Bertie toss pots.

Anybody who voted for Oasis care to reconsider?
 
Eckers99 said:


Some great footage of The Roses just jamming here. Aside from writing great songs, you can see how good they are as musicians, especially Reni, who is a phenomenal drummer.
Click to expand...


That is fantastic. The only reason this discussion is going on is because the Roses are difficult to pin down musically in some ways. They had an innate funk going on through everything which underpinned their sound whereas Oasis were a lot simpler, more suited to the charts and no where near technically.

I always thought their second album was underrated as it was never going to reach the perfection of the first album and it was very good in its own ways. It was obvious from the numerous solos that John Squire had too much power in the band by that stage though.
 
ManUArfa said:
Noel Gallagher roadied for Inspiral Carpets. However, Oasis were heavily influenced by Mersey beat music rather than the Manchester scene. The Gallagher brothers are an embarrassing pair of Bertie toss pots.

Anybody who voted for Oasis care to reconsider?
Click to expand...
Is there anyone who voted for oasis who doesn’t already know that?
 
Big fan of both, seeing Stone Roses at Hampden and Etihad are two of the best days of my life (as well as at T in the Park when I was 17).

Roses first album is incredible, 2nd one is good but nothing near the first. Oasis have a load of good albums. Someone in this thread criticised Be Here Now. Personally I think that album is amazing, one of my favourite. Standing on the Shoulder of Giants and Don’t Believe The Truth are also good in my opinion. Not even mentioning The Masterplan. That’s probably their best album and it’s a collection of B-sides.

I’d probably say Oasis are just better as their catalogue is much more impressive.
 
Balljy said:
That is fantastic. The only reason this discussion is going on is because the Roses are difficult to pin down musically in some ways. They had an innate funk going on through everything which underpinned their sound whereas Oasis were a lot simpler, more suited to the charts and no where near technically.

I always thought their second album was underrated as it was never going to reach the perfection of the first album and it was very good in its own ways. It was obvious from the numerous solos that John Squire had too much power in the band by that stage though.
Click to expand...
Yeah I really enjoyed Second Coming. It was often self-indulgent and some of the songs came across as half-baked but the highlights, and there were lots, stand up against almost anything they produced. Agree about it being Squire's album but I loved hearing his progression into a rock god for the ages. Stuff like Breaking into Heaven struck a cool balance between the limber funk of baggy and the colossal rock of Led Zeppelin.

As much as I enjoyed Definitely Maybe and parts of Morning Glory, Oasis were a kids' band in comparison.
 
Albums as a whole sounded better from Stone Roses. Oasis first album was perhaps unintentional masterpiece, but as time passed the commercial side took over just a bit too much.
 
Although I prefer the Roses' debut album to any Oasis one you also have to take into account the fact that live Ian Brown couldn't sing.

Guess it didn't matter if you were off your tits though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.