[TheCasual]

Everyone seems to compare these two bands. Just wondering what people think. I prefair Roses by quite alot. They are alot better instrumentally and lyrically then Oasis. Although Liam G does have better live voice then Ian Brown. Also The Roses are never scared to change a winning formula. They covered about six genres in the space of two albums, but Oasis stayed with the same type of music right the way through.

Oasis will probably win the poll because they where more commercially successful.

[Wilfred Little]

The Stone Roses.

I don't think either are particularly great but the Roses were more original than Oasis, Oasis were just a crap mash-up of bands but not as good. Plus they're a pair of bell-ends. The Roses are just good at what they do, you get the feeling they were being themselves but with Oasis you feel it's all an act, there's far too much pratting about, mostly from Liam. It's like he tries too hard to be a dickhead.

Also the Roses pioneered a sound Oasis got big with, so for me they're definitely better and more important.

[Stalin]

"Oasis played the same music right the way through."

Shall we compare and contrast Rock N Roll Star, Supersonic, Cigarettes and Alcohol, et cetera, with The Shock of the Lightning?

Oasis became incredibly different once the Definitely Maybe and WTSMG era ended. That put them into the limelight and Be Here Now was the band, now filthy rich, on silly amounts of cocaine, in the transition period. And it all went downhill from there.

[TheCasual]

(Original post by Stalin)
"Oasis played the same music right the way through."

Shall we compare and contrast Rock N Roll Star, Supersonic, Cigarettes and Alcohol, et cetera, with The Shock of the Lightning?

Oasis became incredibly different once the Definitely Maybe and WTSMG era ended. That put them into the limelight and Be Here Now was the band, now filthy rich, on silly amounts of cocaine, in the transition period. And it all went downhill from there.

To me it sounds very similar to Rock 'n' Roll Star. I thought the albums after WTSMG where very average.

[Stalin]

(Original post by TheCasual)
To me it sounds very similar to Rock 'n' Roll Star. I thought the albums after WTSMG where very average.

Similar - how? Give the lyrics a google and compare both songs, you'll soon see just how badly Noel's songwriting deteriorated, although he was hardly to blame.

[PoGo HoPz]

I do like The Stone Roses, but I'm gonna have to go with Oasis on this one. The dynamic duo of Liam and Noel Gallagher just about swings it for me, they were a pair of bloody geniuses!

[Big Ern McCracken]

Oasis, they just recorded more great songs.

[.Scout.]

Gah, I like both but will have to go for Oasis. This is purely due to the fact that Live Forever is my favourite song ever.

[Tochai]

Blur.

[Endless Blue]

The Stone Roses for me.

I don't usually like picking apart a band by it's influences, but with Oasis I don't think you'd be too far off the mark by saying that The Stone Roses and The Beatles basically maps out the band's blueprint. At least for their earlier stuff, in my opinion.

[tekno]

The Stone Roses for sure. Oasis are a bit too lad-rock

[TheCasual]

(Original post by Stalin)
Similar - how? Give the lyrics a google and compare both songs, you'll soon see just how badly Noel's songwriting deteriorated, although he was hardly to blame.

The melody and rhyme are very similar to my ears. Also Noel openly admits steeling riffs off other bands.

[Stalin]

(Original post by TheCasual)
The melody and rhyme are very similar to my ears. Also Noel openly admits steeling riffs off other bands.

I didn't mention the riffs; I mentioned the lyrics, read the lyrics!

[IanDangerously]

(Original post by TheCasual)
Everyone seems to compare these two bands. Just wondering what people think. I prefair Roses by quite alot. They are alot better instrumentally and lyrically then Oasis. Although Liam G does have better live voice then Ian Brown. Also The Roses are never scared to change a winning formula. They covered about six genres in the space of two albums, but Oasis stayed with the same type of music right the way through.

Oasis will probably win the poll because they where more commercially successful.

Roses every day, its not even close for me. Oasis have a handful of catchy anthem sort of songs that I like and the rest of their tracks I really couldn't differentiate one from another. I can take them or leave them. With the Roses on the other hand I can listen to pretty much all their material, even the obscure B-sides and unreleased stuff, and enjoy it every time.

[tea_or_coffee?]

like them both, but oasis just edge it for me

[TheCasual]

(Original post by Stalin)
I didn't mention the riffs; I mentioned the lyrics, read the lyrics!

Well obviously the lyrics are going to be different, its a different song. But the actual sound is very similar.

[mikeyd85]

I vote for TSR. Some fantastic music there, plus their name makes a wonderful acronym.

[Harry Callahan]

The Stone Roses. Oasis were dull and unoriginal.

[KCLeblanc]

I think I'll go with the Stone Roses, but they weren't really rivals. I seem to remember the Stone Roses were imploding just as Oasis were getting started.

If you want rivalries then it would be Oasis Vs Blur. They even released singles on the same day to see who could sell more.

I have to say at the time I prefered Oasis, but looking back I think they were just trying to be the Beatles. Much prefer Blur these days.

[Bellissima]

stone roses... not a massive fan but i do like them... don't really like oasis and the fact that the brothers are dickheads tips it towards roses...