mcmanus
Well-Known Member
The OP is the first straight man I have ever known to like Westlife.
To the question I couldn't choose between them.
To the question I couldn't choose between them.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Oasis or The Roses?
- Thread starter carlos tevez is a blue
- Start date
Super David Silva 21
Well-Known Member
[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnO7ywMPbJ4[/video]
Trevor morleys tash
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 17 Sep 2011
- Messages
- 611
I love some of the roses stuff and play it alot at home or in the car,but oasis had a better range of songs by a distance too IMO.ive seen the roses live twice and oasis about 12,as a live band oasis are miles better IMO.oasis could of released 3 albums of b sides also.it all depends on opinions I suppose,it's an argument that could go on and on.they are both attachable bands in different ways.id just left about two years when oasis burst on the seen and for me changed my life in alot of ways the way I look at things.both great bands in there own rights and will still be playing there songs in another 20 years
A
A
Anonymous
Guest
Tough one.
Some of the Roses early stuff was very good plus the album Stone Roses is possibly one of the greatest of all time. After that, and it is subjective and my opinion, I thought they lost some of that edge. I hated Fools Gold with a passion although I thought Love Spreads was stunning.
As for Oasis - we know they ripped off the Beatles and the Roses but they made it all their own. They have a hugely listenable back catalogue too. Some of it gets samey and some of it is poor. I thought She's Electric is possibly one of the worst songs I've heard!
So, in conclusion... The Stone Roses were by far the better band, Oasis the more extensive back catalogue so I'd regretfully plump for Oasis on the strength I'd have more to listen to over time.
Some of the Roses early stuff was very good plus the album Stone Roses is possibly one of the greatest of all time. After that, and it is subjective and my opinion, I thought they lost some of that edge. I hated Fools Gold with a passion although I thought Love Spreads was stunning.
As for Oasis - we know they ripped off the Beatles and the Roses but they made it all their own. They have a hugely listenable back catalogue too. Some of it gets samey and some of it is poor. I thought She's Electric is possibly one of the worst songs I've heard!
So, in conclusion... The Stone Roses were by far the better band, Oasis the more extensive back catalogue so I'd regretfully plump for Oasis on the strength I'd have more to listen to over time.
Oasis got so popular that it became fashionable to claim not to like them anymore.
But there's a reason they got so popular. They were fucking good.
A Stone Roses tribute band? Suppose you could see where someone was coming from if they said they were a Beatles tribute band. But I can't think of a single Oasis song that sounds remotely like any Stone Roses track.
But there's a reason they got so popular. They were fucking good.
A Stone Roses tribute band? Suppose you could see where someone was coming from if they said they were a Beatles tribute band. But I can't think of a single Oasis song that sounds remotely like any Stone Roses track.
Trevor morleys tash
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 17 Sep 2011
- Messages
- 611
Agree totally they sounded nothing like the roses.tidyman said:Oasis got so popular that it became fashionable to claim not to like them anymore.
But there's a reason they got so popular. They were fucking good.
A Stone Roses tribute band? Suppose you could see where someone was coming from if they said they were a Beatles tribute band. But I can't think of a single Oasis song that sounds remotely like any Stone Roses track.
nobody can eat fifty eggs
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 9 Sep 2011
- Messages
- 4,677
Fuckin Westlife! You sad twat.......Oasis is pushing it too.
whp.blue said:given your options Oasis by a mile
the Stone roses are the most over rated band since U2 don't have a single track of theirs and a bunch of rags to boot
for people of a certain age it was seen as trendy to like the roses and lots of people just followed like sheep I never got it
the Arctic Monkeys in Sheffield are a modern day stone roses every one in Sheffield seems obliged to like the Arctic Monkeys even though they are absolute crap
No they're not.
No they are not.
nobody can eat fifty eggs
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 9 Sep 2011
- Messages
- 4,677
For me you cannot compare the two bands. Oasis are a good listen and rock it, but the Roses are on another planet and one of the most influential iconic bands ever.