stone roses or oasis

[Feed-The-Goat]

Roses.

 

[dave55]

Roses.

are red

 

[BlueHammer85]

Oasis , they would beat most bands just on there B sides alone

 

[MCFC BOB]

Both had excellent debut albums - though The Roses win on that one.

I'd say the Roses win it, in terms of also turning people onto a different kind of music and being part of a scene that changed Manchester in a matter of months.

Oasis made great tunes and maybe were better live, but didn't do anything creative or groundbreaking - and lasted maybe 2 (or more??) albums too long...

You mean five albums.

-- June 24th, 2012, 11:53 am --

Oasis. Never really liked the roses, not saying there shit but I can't listen to there album and not think this sounds all the same.

From an Oasis fan.<br /><br />-- June 24th, 2012, 11:54 am --<br /><br />

Oasis. Never really liked the roses, not saying there shit but I can't listen to there album and not think this sounds all the same.

From an Oasis fan.

 

[Bald fraud]

Oasis

 

[Lancet Fluke]

Oasis did two good albums imo, Stone Roses did one amazing album. I'd go for the Roses.

 

[urban genie]

Roses for me, oasis have Noel & Liam as stand out performers every member of the Roses are quality individually or as a group

 

[greasedupdeafguy]

oasis

 

[Joehannes]

Oasis. Roses obviously had 'it', but Mani said it himself, they were never interested in working hard enough after the first album...could've been up there with the greats, only themselves to blame that they're not imo

 

[Cellarite]

Oasis were arriving just as I left school. They were becoming the biggest and best band on the planet. They had more good songs and albums than the Stone Roses, were better live (by all accounts), switched me on to the music that I've listened to all my adult life, were City fans and formed the soundtrack to my life.

That said, the Stone Roses simply made better songs. It's the Stone Roses for me.